linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHV4 3/3] x86, ras: Add __mcsafe_copy() function to recover from machine checks

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, 24 Dec 2015 22:46:32 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, elliott@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHV4 3/3] x86, ras: Add __mcsafe_copy() function to recover
 from machine checks

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:30:49PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> Using __copy_user_nocache() as inspiration create a memory copy
> routine for use by kernel code with annotations to allow for
> recovery from machine checks.
> 
> Notes:
> 1) We align the source address rather than the destination. This
>    means we never have to deal with a memory read that spans two
>    cache lines ... so we can provide a precise indication of
>    where the error occurred without having to re-execute at
>    a byte-by-byte level to find the exact spot like the original
>    did.
> 2) We 'or' BIT(63) into the return because this is the first
>    in a series of machine check safe functions. Some will copy
>    from user addresses, so may need to indicate an invalid user
>    address instead of a machine check.
> 3) This code doesn't play any cache games. Future functions can
>    use non-temporal loads/stores to meet needs of different callers.
> 4) Provide helpful macros to decode the return value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/string_64.h |   8 +++
>  arch/x86/kernel/x8664_ksyms_64.c |   4 ++
>  arch/x86/lib/memcpy_64.S         | 133 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 145 insertions(+)

...

> +	lea (%rdx,%rcx,8),%rdx
> +	jmp 100f
> +40:
> +	mov %ecx,%edx
> +100:
> +	sfence
> +	mov %edx,%eax
> +	bts $63,%rax
> +	ret

Huh, bit 63 is still alive?

Didn't we just talk about having different return values depending on
whether a fault or an MCE happened *instead* of setting that bit?

You have two "RET" points in that function, why not return a different
value from each?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
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/