Re: [qemu-s390x] [Qemu-devel] [PULL 0/8] x86 queue, 2018-01-17

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:15:27PM -0600, Michael Roth wrote:
> Quoting Christian Borntraeger (2018-01-23 03:59:39)
> > 
> > 
> > On 01/23/2018 09:40 AM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >> On 18 January 2018 at 02:01, Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >>> The following changes since commit 
> > >>> 8e5dc9ba49743b46d955ec7dacb04e42ae7ada7c:
> > >>>
> > >>>   Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/rth/tags/pull-tcg-20180116' 
> > >>> into staging (2018-01-16 17:36:39 +0000)
> > >>>
> > >>> are available in the Git repository at:
> > >>>
> > >>>   git://github.com/ehabkost/qemu.git tags/x86-pull-request
> > >>>
> > >>> for you to fetch changes up to 6cfbc54e8903a9bcc0346119949162d040c144c1:
> > >>>
> > >>>   i386: Add EPYC-IBPB CPU model (2018-01-17 23:54:39 -0200)
> > >>>
> > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> x86 queue, 2018-01-17
> > >>>
> > >>> Highlight: new CPU models that expose CPU features that guests
> > >>> can use to mitigate CVE-2017-5715 (Spectre variant #2).
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Applied, thanks.
> > >>
> > >> -- PMM
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > I was kind of clinging to [1] so far and had the expectation that all
> > > those would be wrapped up in 2.11.1 once ready.
> > > I see that the s390x changes are targeted to qemu-stable (well to
> > > admit I suggested so referring the article above).
> > > So I'd expected to see this series to show up on qemu-stable as well
> > > but haven't seen it so far.
> > > 
> > > Therefore I wanted to ask if there was a change of plans in that
> > > regard or if it needs just a few days more to see (part of) this
> > > series on qemu-stable and on its way into 2.11.1?
> > > 
> > > [1]: https://www.qemu.org/2018/01/04/spectre/
> > 
> > Adding Michael,
> > 
> > Yes, I think it makes sense to have the guest enablement for the spectre 
> > mitigations available in 2.11.1 for all architectures that provide it. 
> > (this queue for x86, Connies pending S390 patches, whatever Power
> > and arm will do).
> 
> That's my plan as well, but IIUC the QEMU side of these patches rely on
> a KVM flag that in turn relies on this series:
> 
>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/20/158

Actually it depends on:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/9/329
([PATCH v2 0/8] KVM: x86: expose CVE-2017-5715 ("Spectre variant 2") 
mitigations to guest)

The ability to expose IBRS to guests doesn't seem to depend on
the host kernel using IBRS to protect itself.  But I guess it
will be easier to merge that code after Linux developers decide
what they'll do.  Paolo, what's your take on this?

Note that there are released OSes that use IBRS (Windows and
RHEL), so even if upstream Linux decide to not rely on IBRS,
users will probably want to expose IBRS to VMs as soon as KVM
becomes able to do that.

BUT:

> 
> But that's still in RFC and Linus seems to have reservations with the
> current code. Since coordinating these all this to users/downstreams is
> somewhat of a mess I was thinking we should accompany the 2.11.1 release
> with a blog post on the various options/backports/microcode needed throughout
> the stack to enable the fixes, but until there's a stable patchset on
> the linux side I'm not sure there's much worth in putting out the 2.11.1
> release (if I'm missing something here please let me know).

I'm inclined to agree.  I merged the -IBRS CPU models expecting
that the fixes would be included quickly in upstream Linux too,
but it was not the case.

To be honest, I don't think adding new CPU models are the proper
solution for the problem.  They are just a quick solution that
doesn't require intrusive changes in the management stack.

Meltdown & Spectre made us painfully aware of limitations of
management stacks out there (esp. OpenStack): they normally don't
have an easy mechanism to enable CPU features that are not part
of an existing CPU model name.  A good management stack would be
able to use, e.g., "-cpu Westmere,+spec-ctrl" instead of
"Westmere-IBRS" if it knows all the hosts on a given
cluster/migration-set/whatever-it-is-called support the feature.
The same applies to other flags like ibpb and pcid.

There's work being done on OpenStack to fix this,
e.g.: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/534384/


That said, we will probably want to include MSR code and the CPU
feature flag names (spec-ctrl and ibpb) on the stable branch as
soon as possible.  This way, people will have the option to
manually enable those features (or make them automatically
available using "-cpu host") before a decision is made regarding
CPU model names.

I can send a patch series to -stable including only those
patches, if it makes the work easier.


> 
> There's also the testing aspect of this, which I'd at least like to cover
> on the x86 side. I've be doing some basic testing on top of early versions
> of the IBRS patches and KVM patches, but I'd really like to make sure
> everything is working on top of what's ultimately going upstream before
> I commit the release.
> 
> In the meantime I've started a staging tree for 2.11.1 here:
> 
>   https://github.com/mdroth/qemu/commits/stable-2.11-staging
> 
> it doesn't have these patches yet, and given the above I'm not sure it
> makes sense to try to set a release date yet, but I'll update the tree
> as we go and post a call-for-patches within a day or so where we can
> coordinate what else should go in for other archs.
> 
> > 
> > Not sure about a 2.10.3?
> > 
> 
> Out of support as far as stable releases go; will have to leave that one
> up to the downstreams.

-- 
Eduardo