linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/efi] x86/efi: Check for unsafe dealing with FPU state in irq ctxt

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:	Thu, 05 Jun 2014 09:31:12 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/efi] x86/efi: Check for unsafe dealing with FPU state
 in irq ctxt

On 06/05/2014 09:18 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 09:14:51AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Is this NMI pstore thing done from any context that's supposed to be
>> recoverable? It's always safe to use the FPU and then panic :)
> 
> Right :)
> 
>> Anyway, if we're just talking about EFI, there's an easier solution:
>> just preallocate a per-cpu FPU context for EFI and make the whole mess
>> be local to the EFI code.  For crypto, that's not so good.
> 
> This is probably something for Matt to decide but it sounds doable. If
> I'd have to guess, sooner or later we will need to do proper FPU context
> handling for EFI as I don't see anything stopping it from using FPU
> insns. At least we won't. :-)
> 

The bottom line is that we can't call EFI from a context where we can't
use the FPU.  Or specifically, we can't then resume execution.  If all
we're doing is stashing away some data before dying, well, then, by all
means - but we need to make sure that is what actually happens.

As far adding additional xstate save areas, the current size of the
xstate is about ~2.5K for AVX-512 enabled processors, and we need one
per thread.  If we make that two copies, then
kernel_fpu_begin()..._end() would no longer have to disable preemption,
but it wouldn't resolve the conflict about using the FPU from IRQ
context when inside kernel_fpu_begin().._end().

To support the FPU in IRQ context we end up having to create a percpu
FPU state stack, and it becomes then a matter of how deep that stack
would have to be.

	-hpa

--
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/