[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3 V3] XSA-60 security hole: cr0.cd handling
Liu, Jinsong wrote: > Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx> 10/23/13 6:29 PM >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 21.10.13 at 17:55, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>> From 4ff1e2955f67954e60562b29a00adea89e5b93ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 >>>>> 2001 From: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 05:49:23 +0800 >>>>> Subject: [PATCH 3/3 V3] XSA-60 security hole: cr0.cd handling >>>>> >>>>> This patch solves XSA-60 security hole: >>>>> 1. For guest w/o VT-d, and for guest with VT-d but snooped, Xen >>>>> need do nothing, since hardware snoop mechanism has ensured cache >>>>> coherency. >>>>> >>>>> 2. For guest with VT-d but non-snooped, cache coherency can not be >>>>> guaranteed by h/w snoop, therefore it need emulate UC type to >>>>> guest: >>>>> 2.1). if it works w/ Intel EPT, set guest IA32_PAT fields as UC so >>>>> that guest memory type are all UC. >>> >>> Can you make sure that "setting guest IA32_PAT fields as UC" doesn't >>> have a conflict with the existing (other) settings done by the >>> guest? >> >> I don't think I understand the question, and I also don't think I'm >> the right addressee (I think you meant to send this to Jinsong and >> only Cc me). >> >> Jan > > Maybe Jun's concern is 'guest PAT (real pat of vmcs which take > effect, not nominal guest_pat) should be identical among all physical > processors which run vcpus of that guest', am I right, Jun? > > One thing I'm not sure is, per Intel SDM (8.7.4 of volume 3), the PAT > MSR settings must be the same for all processors in a system. > However, Xen obviously doesn't satisfy this requirement: PAT of the > cpus running vmm context (50100070406) is not identical to PAT of the > cpus running guest context (take rhel6.4 guest as example, it's > 7010600070106) -- practically it works fine. Or, PAT requirement under virtualization would better be 'PAT MSR settings must be the same for all processors of a domain (take vmm as a special domain)'? otherwise IA32_PAT fields of vmcs is pointless. Anyway, we'd better change our patch from per-vcpu PAT emulation to per-domain PAT emulation. Does it make sense, Jun? Thanks, Jinsong _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |