[MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 8/9] TAA 8

> > > > +For the affected platforms below table indicates the mitigation status for the
> > > > +combinations of CPUID bit MD_CLEAR and IA32_ARCH_CAPABILITIES MSR bits MDS_NO
> > > > +and TSX_CTRL_MSR.
> > > > +
> > > > +  =======  =========  =============  ========================================
> > > > +  MDS_NO   MD_CLEAR   TSX_CTRL_MSR   Status
> > > > +  =======  =========  =============  ========================================
> > > > +    0          0            0        Vulnerable (needs ucode)
> > > > +    0          1            0        MDS and TAA mitigated via VERW
> > > > +    1          1            0        MDS fixed, TAA vulnerable if TSX enabled
> > > > +                                     because MD_CLEAR has no meaning and
> > > > +                                     VERW is not guaranteed to clear buffers
> > > 
> > > (needs ucode) ?
> > 
> > Will there even be microcode for those to beef up VERW?
> 
> This might be a question for Intel, but I assumed this is the case where
> the new microcode on the MDS_NO parts would enable the VERW buffer
> clearing.

That is correct.

> > > > +If the microcode is available and the TSX is disabled on the host, attacks
> > > > +are prevented in a virtualized environment as well, even if the VMs do not
> > > > +explicitly enable the mitigation.
> > > 
> > > What's the effect on VM security if TSX is enabled and the host TAA
> > > mitigation is also enabled?
> > 
> > Same as in the !VM case, I'd assume. tsx_async_abort=full,nosmt should
> > give you full mitigation.
> 
> Right, the effects of the host mitigation options on the guest would be
> useful here.

When TSX is enabled on host part 6/9 exports MDS_NO=0 to VMs, so that
VMs deploy MDS mitigation which also mitigates TAA.

> > > > +Mitigation strategy
> > > > +-------------------
> > > > +
> > > > +a) TSX disable - one of the mitigations is to disable TSX. A new MSR
> > > > +IA32_TSX_CTRL will be available in future and current processors after
> > > 
> > > which processors?
> > 
> > The MDS_NO=1 and future parts, I guess.
> 
> Right, that should be clarified.

This is correct, list of MDS_NO=1 parts shared earlier, and the future parts.

Thanks,
Pawan