linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, AMD: Disable wrongly set X86_FEATURE_LAHF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:29:26 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kjwinchester@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
	borislav.petkov@....com, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86, AMD: Disable wrongly set X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM
 CPUID bit

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 01:02:11PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/30/2009 12:30 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:22:34PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 08/30/2009 04:50 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >>>  			clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_LAHF_LM);
> >>> +			if (!rdmsrl_amd_safe(0xc001100d, &val)) {
> >>> +				val &= ~(1ULL << 32);
> >>> +				wrmsr_amd_safe(0xc001100d, (u32) val,
> >>> +							   (u32)(val >> 32));
> >>> +			}
> >>> +		}
> >> We presumably want/need wrmsrl_amd_safe() here!
> > 
> > Actually, it is wrmsr_amd_safe() because we need the magic value in
> > %edi. wrmsr_amd_safe() calls the _regs variant with the array argument.
> > And we don't have a wrmsrl_amd_safe-one which gets a 64bit msr value as
> > an argument similar to the rdmsrl one.
> > 
> 
> That's exactly the point.  We shouldn't have rdmsrl_amd_safe() on one
> hand and wrmsr_asm_safe() on the other.  I have already fixed this up in
> my tree, but this kind of asymmetry should have been a big red flashing
> light.

Ok, what do we want actually? We have rdmsr_safe and rdmsrl_safe where
the last one engineers the 2 u32s into a u64. My gut feeling would opt
for the 2 32bit values instead of one 64bit since they're naturally
returned into %eax:%edx. And in the most cases we need only one of the
values. However, the MSRs themselves are 64bit... Hmmm...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/