From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joerg Roedel Subject: Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 09:55:12 +0200 Message-ID: <20200428075512.GP30814@suse.de> References: <20200425191032.GK21900@8bytes.org> <910AE5B4-4522-4133-99F7-64850181FBF9@amacapital.net> <20200425202316.GL21900@8bytes.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Joerg Roedel , Dave Hansen , Tom Lendacky , Mike Stunes , Dan Williams , Dave Hansen , "H. Peter Anvin" , Juergen Gross , Jiri Slaby , Kees Cook , kvm list , LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Hellstrom , Linux Virtualization , X86 ML , Sean Christopherson , Andrew Cooper List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:37:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I have a somewhat serious question: should we use IST for #VC at all? > As I understand it, Rome and Naples make it mandatory for hypervisors > to intercept #DB, which means that, due to the MOV SS mess, it's sort > of mandatory to use IST for #VC. But Milan fixes the #DB issue, so, > if we're running under a sufficiently sensible hypervisor, we don't > need IST for #VC. The reason for #VC being IST is not only #DB, but also SEV-SNP. SNP adds page ownership tracking between guest and host, so that the hypervisor can't remap guest pages without the guest noticing. If there is a violation of ownership, which can happen at any memory access, there will be a #VC exception to notify the guest. And as this can happen anywhere, for example on a carefully crafted stack page set by userspace before doing SYSCALL, the only robust choice for #VC is to use IST. Regards, Joerg