[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Revert "x86/hvm: disable pkeys for guests in non-paging mode"
>>> On 31.05.17 at 10:06, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 31/05/2017 08:56, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 31.05.17 at 09:44, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 31/05/2017 08:09, Han, Huaitong wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2017-05-26 at 18:03 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>>> This reverts commit c41e0266dd59ab50b7a153157e9bd2a3ad114b53. >>>>> >>>>> When determining Access Rights, Protection Keys only take effect when >>> CR4.PKE >>>>> it set, and 4-level paging is active. All other circumstances (notibly, >>> 32bit >>>>> PAE paging) skip the Protection Key control mechanism. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, we do not need to clear CR4.PKE behind the back of a guest >>>>> which >>> is >>>>> not using paging, as such a guest is necesserily running with EFER.LME >>>>> disabled. >>>> Yes, if EFER.LME = 0, Protection Keys would take no effect too, so it >>>> isn't necessary to clear CR4.PKE in non-paging mode. >>>> >>>>> The {RD,WR}PKRU instructions are specified as being legal for use in any >>>>> operating mode, but only if CR4.PKE is set. By clearing CR4.PKE behind >>>>> the >>>>> back of an unpaged guest, these instructions yield #UD despite the guest >>>>> seeing PKE set if it reads CR4, and OSPKE being visible in CPUID. >>>> If CR4.PKE is cleared, OSPKE would be invisible at the same time. When >>>> guest does set CR4_PKE in non-paging mode, then CR4_PKE would be cleared >>>> in vmcs loading, so, OSPKE should be always invisible, and #UD should >>>> not be yielded too. >>> Remember that for HVM guests, Xen calculates OSPKE in software; it never >>> comes from hardware, as CPUID is an automatic VMEXIT. >>> >>> The CPUID code uses the same source of information as a read from cr4, >>> so comes to the conclusion that OSPKE should be visible. >>> >>> Therefore, when the guest looks at CPUID, it sees OSPKE set even though >>> hardware would come to the opposite conclusion. >> Shouldn't we correct this (independent of the patch here)? > > No, I don't think so. That would involve the generic cpuid code looking > at GUEST_CR4 and making decisions contrary to what is described in the > manuals. > > Besides, it very definitely should be visible in a read of CR4 (because > the guest did really set it), which means OSPKE should be visible in CPUID. Oh, then I misunderstood your earlier reply, taking it that we wrongly show the flag as set to the guest. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |