|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [PATCH v3 1/4] x86: Reject CPU policies with vendors other than the host's
While in principle it's possible to have a vendor virtualising another,
this is fairly tricky in practice and comes with the world's supply of
security issues.
Reject any CPU policy with vendors not matching the host's.
Signed-off-by: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@xxxxxxx>
---
v3:
* Check vendor_e{b,c,d}x rather than x86_vendor.
* Added unit tests for pass/fail cases.
* They cover a success and a failure on a comparison of an unknown
vendor.
---
CHANGELOG.md | 5 +++++
tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
xen/lib/x86/policy.c | 5 ++++-
3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/CHANGELOG.md b/CHANGELOG.md
index 18f3d10f20..426c0bce67 100644
--- a/CHANGELOG.md
+++ b/CHANGELOG.md
@@ -22,6 +22,11 @@ The format is based on [Keep a
Changelog](https://keepachangelog.com/en/1.0.0/)
- Xenoprofile support. Oprofile themselves removed support for Xen in 2014
prior to the version 1.0 release, and there has been no development since
before then in Xen.
+ - Domains can no longer run on a CPU vendor if they were initially launched
+ on a different CPU vendor. This affects live migrations and save/restore
+ workflows accross mixed-vendor hosts. Cross-vendor emulation has always
+ been unreliable, but since 2017 with the advent of speculation security it
+ became unsustainably so.
- Removed xenpm tool on non-x86 platforms as it doesn't actually provide
anything useful outside of x86.
diff --git a/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c
b/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c
index 301df2c002..88a9a26e8f 100644
--- a/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c
+++ b/tools/tests/cpu-policy/test-cpu-policy.c
@@ -586,6 +586,19 @@ static void test_is_compatible_success(void)
.platform_info.cpuid_faulting = true,
},
},
+ {
+ .name = "Host CPU vendor == Guest CPU vendor (both unknown)",
+ .host = {
+ .basic.vendor_ebx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_EBX + 1,
+ .basic.vendor_ecx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_ECX,
+ .basic.vendor_edx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_EDX,
+ },
+ .guest = {
+ .basic.vendor_ebx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_EBX + 1,
+ .basic.vendor_ecx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_ECX,
+ .basic.vendor_edx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_EDX,
+ },
+ },
};
struct cpu_policy_errors no_errors = INIT_CPU_POLICY_ERRORS;
@@ -629,6 +642,20 @@ static void test_is_compatible_failure(void)
},
.e = { -1, -1, 0xce },
},
+ {
+ .name = "Host CPU vendor != Guest CPU vendor (both unknown)",
+ .host = {
+ .basic.vendor_ebx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_EBX + 1,
+ .basic.vendor_ecx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_ECX,
+ .basic.vendor_edx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_EDX,
+ },
+ .guest = {
+ .basic.vendor_ebx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_EBX + 2,
+ .basic.vendor_ecx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_ECX,
+ .basic.vendor_edx = X86_VENDOR_AMD_EDX,
+ },
+ .e = { 0, -1, -1 },
+ },
};
printf("Testing policy compatibility failure:\n");
diff --git a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c
index f033d22785..f991b1f3a9 100644
--- a/xen/lib/x86/policy.c
+++ b/xen/lib/x86/policy.c
@@ -15,7 +15,10 @@ int x86_cpu_policies_are_compatible(const struct cpu_policy
*host,
#define FAIL_MSR(m) \
do { e.msr = (m); goto out; } while ( 0 )
- if ( guest->basic.max_leaf > host->basic.max_leaf )
+ if ( (guest->basic.vendor_ebx != host->basic.vendor_ebx) ||
+ (guest->basic.vendor_ecx != host->basic.vendor_ecx) ||
+ (guest->basic.vendor_edx != host->basic.vendor_edx) ||
+ (guest->basic.max_leaf > host->basic.max_leaf) )
FAIL_CPUID(0, NA);
if ( guest->feat.max_subleaf > host->feat.max_subleaf )
--
2.43.0
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |