[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Xen Project Spectre/Meltdown FAQ
On 10/01/18 04:58, Peter wrote: > On 2018-01-09 15:04, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> On Sun, 7 Jan 2018, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 07:05:56PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> > On 05/01/18 18:16, Rich Persaud wrote: >>> > >> On Jan 5, 2018, at 06:35, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth.xen@xxxxxxxxx >>> > >> <mailto:lars.kurth.xen@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>> > >> Linux’s KPTI series is designed to address SP3 only. For Xen >>> guests, >>> > >> only 64-bit PV guests are affected by SP3. A KPTI-like approach was >>> > >> explored initially, but required significant ABI changes. >>> >>> Is some partial KPTI-like approach feasible? Like unmapping memory owned >>> by other guests, but keeping Xen areas mapped? This will still allow >>> leaking Xen memory, but there are very few secrets there (vCPUs state, >>> anything else?), so overall impact will be much lower. >> >> +1 >> > > I believe > https://blog.xenproject.org/2018/01/04/xen-project-spectremeltdown-faq/ > is clear re VMs attacking/accessing the host/dom0/hypervisor and the > mitigations for that. > > However the page seems ambiguous about whether 64 bit VMs running as > PVHv2 with host provided kernels are protected or not (from each VM's > own processes). PVHv2 is using exactly the same runtime environment as HVM seen from the hypervisor. So a guest running as PVHv2 needs a PTI like approach like HVM in its kernel. > Can the page be updated to be more explicit and perhaps describe how the > VM kernel or how the PVHv2 virtualization provides that protection. And > ideally how that could be checked from the VM itself. e.g. grep pti > /proc/cpuinfo? As this is really guest specific this information can't be provided by Xen. > e.g. the page says: "Guest kernels running in 64-bit PV mode are not > directly vulnerable to attack using SP3, because 64-bit PV guests > already run in a KPTI-like mode." but it does not mention PVHv2 for > that. Is it protected under PVHv2? Does it depend on the kernel? Is > so what is the patchset/option/mechanism that protects the VM from its > own processes? This question should have been answered above already. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |