Re: [PATCH v5 09/19] KVM:x86: Make guest supervisor states as non-XSAVE managed

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 8/10/23 16:29, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 8/10/23 02:29, Yang, Weijiang wrote:
> ...
> > When KVM enumerates shadow stack support for guest in CPUID(0x7,
> > 0).ECX[bit7], architecturally it claims both SS user and supervisor
> > mode are supported. Although the latter is not supported in Linux,
> > but in virtualization world, the guest OS could be non-Linux system,
> > so KVM supervisor state support is necessary in this case.
>
> What actual OSes need this support?

I think Xen could use it when running nested.  But KVM cannot expose 
support for CET in CPUID, and at the same time fake support for 
MSR_IA32_PL{0,1,2}_SSP (e.g. inject a #GP if it's ever written to a 
nonzero value).

I suppose we could invent our own paravirtualized CPUID bit for 
"supervisor IBT works but supervisor SHSTK doesn't".  Linux could check 
that but I don't think it's a good idea.

So... do, or do not.  There is no try. :)

> > Two solutions are on the table:
> > 1) Enable CET supervisor support in Linux kernel like user mode support.
>
> We _will_ do this eventually, but not until FRED is merged.  The core
> kernel also probably won't be managing the MSRs on non-FRED hardware.
>
> I think what you're really talking about here is that the kernel would
> enable CET_S XSAVE state management so that CET_S state could be managed
> by the core kernel's FPU code.

Yes, I understand it that way too.

> That is, frankly, *NOT* like the user mode support at all.

I agree.

> > 2) Enable support in KVM domain.
> >
> > Problem:
> > The Pros/Cons for each solution(my individual thoughts):
> > In kernel solution:
> > Pros:
> > - Avoid saving/restoring 3 supervisor MSRs(PL{0,1,2}_SSP) at vCPU
> >    execution path.
> > - Easy for KVM to manage guest CET xstate bits for guest.
> > Cons:
> > - Unnecessary supervisor state xsaves/xrstors operation for non-vCPU
> >    thread.
>
> What operations would be unnecessary exactly?

Saving/restoring PL0/1/2_SSP when switching from one usermode task's 
fpstate to another.

> > KVM solution:
> > Pros:
> > - Not touch current kernel FPU management framework and logic.
> > - No extra space and operation for non-vCPU thread.
> > Cons:
> > - Manually saving/restoring 3 supervisor MSRs is a performance burden to
> >    KVM.
> > - It looks more like a hack method for KVM, and some handling logic
> >    seems a bit awkward.
>
> In a perfect world, we'd just allocate space for CET_S in the KVM
> fpstates.  The core kernel fpstates would have
> XSTATE_BV[13]==XCOMP_BV[13]==0.  An XRSTOR of the core kernel fpstates
> would just set CET_S to its init state.

Yep.  I don't think it's a lot of work to implement.  The basic idea as 
you point out below is something like

#define XFEATURE_MASK_USER_DYNAMIC XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE_DATA
#define XFEATURE_MASK_USER_OPTIONAL \
    (XFEATURE_MASK_DYNAMIC | XFEATURE_MASK_CET_KERNEL)

where XFEATURE_MASK_USER_DYNAMIC is used for xfd-related tasks 
(including the ARCH_GET_XCOMP_SUPP arch_prctl) but everything else uses 
XFEATURE_MASK_USER_OPTIONAL.

KVM would enable the feature by hand when allocating the guest fpstate. 
Disabled features would be cleared from EDX:EAX when calling 
XSAVE/XSAVEC/XSAVES.

> But I suspect that would be too much work to implement in practice.  It
> would be akin to a new lesser kind of dynamic xstate, one that didn't
> interact with XFD and *NEVER* gets allocated in the core kernel
> fpstates, even on demand.
>
> I want to hear more about who is going to use CET_S state under KVM in
> practice.  I don't want to touch it if this is some kind of purely
> academic exercise.  But it's also silly to hack some kind of temporary
> solution into KVM that we'll rip out in a year when real supervisor
> shadow stack support comes along.
>
> If it's actually necessary, we should probably just eat the 24 bytes in
> the fpstates, flip the bit in IA32_XSS and move on.  There shouldn't be
> any other meaningful impact to the core kernel.

If that's good to you, why not.

Paolo