[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v12 for-xen-4.5 18/20] x86/VPMU: Add privileged PMU mode
On 09/30/2014 04:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 25.09.14 at 21:28, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:--- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c @@ -2579,6 +2579,10 @@ static int emulate_privileged_op(struct cpu_user_regs *regs) case MSR_AMD_FAM15H_EVNTSEL0...MSR_AMD_FAM15H_PERFCTR5: if ( vpmu_msr || (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) ) { + if ( (vpmu_mode & XENPMU_MODE_ALL) && + !is_hardware_domain(v->domain) ) + break; + if ( vpmu_do_wrmsr(regs->ecx, msr_content, 0) ) goto fail; } @@ -2701,6 +2705,14 @@ static int emulate_privileged_op(struct cpu_user_regs *regs) case MSR_AMD_FAM15H_EVNTSEL0...MSR_AMD_FAM15H_PERFCTR5: if ( vpmu_msr || (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) ) { + if ( (vpmu_mode & XENPMU_MODE_ALL) && + !is_hardware_domain(v->domain) ) + { + /* Don't leak PMU MSRs to unprivileged domains */ + regs->eax = regs->edx = 0; + break; + } + if ( vpmu_do_rdmsr(regs->ecx, &msr_content) ) goto fail;Is ignoring writes and returning zeroes for reads really reasonable in this case? I.e. is the guest validly being told that there is a (v)PMU? Because if it's not, it has no business accessing these MSRs and hence should probably get a #GP instead. VPMU mode can be changed to XENPMU_MODE_ALL at any time so a guest that started with fully enabled PMU (e.g. when mode was XENPMU_MODE_SELF) may continue accessing the MSRs. I don't think it should suddenly start getting #GPs. -boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |