From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: arm/arm64: Add VCPU workarounds firmware register Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:41:19 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190122104119.15a80ae6@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190122101657.GE3578@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:17:00 +0000 Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:05:35PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > > Workarounds for Spectre variant 2 or 4 vulnerabilities require some > > help from the firmware, so KVM implements an interface to provide > > that for guests. When such a guest is migrated, we want to make > > sure we don't loose the protection the guest relies on. > > > > This introduces two new firmware registers in KVM's GET/SET_ONE_REG > > interface, so userland can save the level of protection implemented > > by the hypervisor and used by the guest. Upon restoring these > > registers, we make sure we don't downgrade and reject any values > > that would mean weaker protection. > > Just trolling here, but could we treat these as immutable, like the ID > registers? > > We don't support migration between nodes that are "too different" in > any case, so I wonder if adding complex logic to compare > vulnerabilities and workarounds is liable to create more problems > than it solves... That is a good point, and we should keep an eye on that it doesn't get out of hands here. Indeed it is not clear yet how many users really want to migrate between hosts with a different CPU or platform. But ... > Do we know of anyone who explicitly needs this flexibility yet? I think there is a good use case to migrate from a vulnerable host to one which implements mitigations or isn't vulnerable in the first place, in which case we want to allow migrations. The scenario here would probably to migrate VMs away, update the firmware, reboot the host and migrate the VMs back. For the other direction (increasing vulnerability) we deny it here, which is in line with what you think of? Cheers, Andre.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com> To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] KVM: arm/arm64: Add VCPU workarounds firmware register Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:41:19 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190122104119.15a80ae6@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20190122101657.GE3578@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 10:17:00 +0000 Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 12:05:35PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > > Workarounds for Spectre variant 2 or 4 vulnerabilities require some > > help from the firmware, so KVM implements an interface to provide > > that for guests. When such a guest is migrated, we want to make > > sure we don't loose the protection the guest relies on. > > > > This introduces two new firmware registers in KVM's GET/SET_ONE_REG > > interface, so userland can save the level of protection implemented > > by the hypervisor and used by the guest. Upon restoring these > > registers, we make sure we don't downgrade and reject any values > > that would mean weaker protection. > > Just trolling here, but could we treat these as immutable, like the ID > registers? > > We don't support migration between nodes that are "too different" in > any case, so I wonder if adding complex logic to compare > vulnerabilities and workarounds is liable to create more problems > than it solves... That is a good point, and we should keep an eye on that it doesn't get out of hands here. Indeed it is not clear yet how many users really want to migrate between hosts with a different CPU or platform. But ... > Do we know of anyone who explicitly needs this flexibility yet? I think there is a good use case to migrate from a vulnerable host to one which implements mitigations or isn't vulnerable in the first place, in which case we want to allow migrations. The scenario here would probably to migrate VMs away, update the firmware, reboot the host and migrate the VMs back. For the other direction (increasing vulnerability) we deny it here, which is in line with what you think of? Cheers, Andre. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-22 10:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-01-07 12:05 [PATCH 0/2] KVM: arm/arm64: Add VCPU workarounds firmware register Andre Przywara 2019-01-07 12:05 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-07 12:05 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm/arm64: Add save/restore support for firmware workaround state Andre Przywara 2019-01-07 12:05 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-07 13:17 ` Steven Price 2019-01-07 13:17 ` Steven Price 2019-01-21 17:04 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-21 17:04 ` Andre Przywara 2019-02-22 12:26 ` Andre Przywara 2019-02-22 12:26 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-22 15:17 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-22 15:17 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-25 14:46 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-25 14:46 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-29 21:32 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-29 21:32 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-30 11:39 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-30 11:39 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-30 12:07 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-30 12:07 ` Dave Martin 2019-02-15 9:58 ` Andre Przywara 2019-02-15 9:58 ` Andre Przywara 2019-02-15 11:42 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-02-15 11:42 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-02-15 17:26 ` Dave Martin 2019-02-15 17:26 ` Dave Martin 2019-02-18 9:07 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-02-18 9:07 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-02-18 10:28 ` Dave Martin 2019-02-18 10:28 ` Dave Martin 2019-02-18 10:59 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-02-18 10:59 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-02-18 11:29 ` André Przywara 2019-02-18 11:29 ` André Przywara 2019-02-18 14:15 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-02-18 14:15 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-01-07 12:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: doc: add API documentation on the KVM_REG_ARM_WORKAROUNDS register Andre Przywara 2019-01-07 12:05 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-22 10:17 ` [PATCH 0/2] KVM: arm/arm64: Add VCPU workarounds firmware register Dave Martin 2019-01-22 10:17 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-22 10:41 ` Andre Przywara [this message] 2019-01-22 10:41 ` Andre Przywara 2019-01-22 11:11 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-01-22 11:11 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-01-22 13:56 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-22 13:56 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-22 14:51 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-01-22 14:51 ` Marc Zyngier 2019-01-22 15:28 ` Dave Martin 2019-01-22 15:28 ` Dave Martin
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190122104119.15a80ae6@donnerap.cambridge.arm.com \ --to=andre.przywara@arm.com \ --cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \ --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.