Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Enable Notify VM exit

[Tao Xu]

On 11/3/20 1:31 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:43:30AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 10:14 PM Tao Xu <tao3.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 2. Another patch to disable interception of #DB and #AC when notify
> > > VM-Exiting is enabled.
> >
> > Whoa there.
> >
> > A VM control that says "hey, CPU, if you messed up and livelocked for
> > a long time, please break out of the loop" is not a substitute for
> > fixing the livelocks.  So I don't think you get do disable
> > interception of #DB and #AC.
>
> I think that can be incorporated into a module param, i.e. let the platform
> owner decide which tool(s) they want to use to mitigate the legacy architecture
> flaws.
>
> > I also think you should print a loud warning
>
> I'm not so sure on this one, e.g. userspace could just spin up a new instance
> if its malicious guest and spam the kernel log.
>
> > and have some intelligent handling when this new exit triggers.
>
> We discussed something similar in the context of the new bus lock VM-Exit.  I
> don't know that it makes sense to try and add intelligence into the kernel.
> In many use cases, e.g. clouds, the userspace VMM is trusted (inasmuch as
> userspace can be trusted), while the guest is completely untrusted.  Reporting
> the error to userspace and letting the userspace stack take action is likely
> preferable to doing something fancy in the kernel.
>
>
> Tao, this patch should probably be tagged RFC, at least until we can experiment
> with the threshold on real silicon.  KVM and kernel behavior may depend on the
> accuracy of detecting actual attacks, e.g. if we can set a threshold that has
> zero false negatives and near-zero false postives, then it probably makes sense
> to be more assertive in how such VM-Exits are reported and logged.
Sorry, I should add RFC tag for this patch. I will add it next time.