Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/hvm: Introduce experimental guest CET support

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 26.04.2021 19:54, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> For now, let VMs opt into using CET by setting cet_ss/ibt in the CPUID
> policy.  Also extend cr4 handling to permit CR4.CET being set, along with
> logic to interlock CR4.CET and CR0.WP.
> 
> Everything else will malfunction for now, but this will help adding support
> incrementally - there is a lot to do before CET will work properly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Just one consideration:

> --- a/xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpufeatureset.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-x86/cpufeatureset.h
> @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ XEN_CPUFEATURE(UMIP,          6*32+ 2) /*S  User Mode 
> Instruction Prevention */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(PKU,           6*32+ 3) /*H  Protection Keys for Userspace */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(OSPKE,         6*32+ 4) /*!  OS Protection Keys Enable */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(AVX512_VBMI2,  6*32+ 6) /*A  Additional AVX-512 Vector Byte 
> Manipulation Instrs */
> -XEN_CPUFEATURE(CET_SS,        6*32+ 7) /*   CET - Shadow Stacks */
> +XEN_CPUFEATURE(CET_SS,        6*32+ 7) /*h  CET - Shadow Stacks */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(GFNI,          6*32+ 8) /*A  Galois Field Instrs */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(VAES,          6*32+ 9) /*A  Vector AES Instrs */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(VPCLMULQDQ,    6*32+10) /*A  Vector Carry-less Multiplication 
> Instrs */
> @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ XEN_CPUFEATURE(SRBDS_CTRL,    9*32+ 9) /*   
> MSR_MCU_OPT_CTRL and RNGDS_MITG_DIS.
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(MD_CLEAR,      9*32+10) /*A  VERW clears microarchitectural 
> buffers */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(TSX_FORCE_ABORT, 9*32+13) /* MSR_TSX_FORCE_ABORT.RTM_ABORT */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(SERIALIZE,     9*32+14) /*a  SERIALIZE insn */
> -XEN_CPUFEATURE(CET_IBT,       9*32+20) /*   CET - Indirect Branch Tracking */
> +XEN_CPUFEATURE(CET_IBT,       9*32+20) /*h  CET - Indirect Branch Tracking */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(IBRSB,         9*32+26) /*A  IBRS and IBPB support (used by 
> Intel) */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(STIBP,         9*32+27) /*A  STIBP */
>  XEN_CPUFEATURE(L1D_FLUSH,     9*32+28) /*S  MSR_FLUSH_CMD and L1D flush. */

If by the time 4.16 finishes up the various todo items haven't been
taken care of, should we take note to undo these markings? I would
have suggested allowing them for debug builds only, but that's kind
of ugly to achieve in a public header.

Jan