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:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:54:58 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] msr-trace.h:42 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:59:01PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > The issue is that you obvioulsy start with the assumption, that the machine
> > has this bug. As a consequence the machine is brute forced into tick
> > broadcast mode, which cannot be reverted when you clear that misfeature
> > after ACPI init. So in case of !NOHZ and !HIGHRES the periodic tick is
> > forced into broadcast mode, which is not what you want.
> > 
> > As far as I understood the whole magic, this C1E misfeature takes only
> > effect _after_ ACPI has been initialized. So instead of setting the bug in
> > early boot and therefor forcing the broadcast nonsense, we should only set
> > it when ACPI has actually detected it.
> 
> Problem is, select_idle_routine() runs a lot earlier than acpi_init() so
> there's a window where we don't definitively know yet whether the box is
> actually going to enter C1E or not.
> 
>   [ I presume the reason why we have to do the proper detection after
>     ACPI has been initialized is because the frickelware decides whether
>     to do C1E entry or not and then sets those bits in the MSR (or not). ]
> 
> If in that window we enter idle and we're on an affected machine and we
> *don't* switch to broadcast mode, we risk not waking up from C1E, i.e.,
> the main reason this fix was even done.
> 
> So, if we "prematurely" switch to broadcast mode on the affected CPUs,
> we're ok, it will be detected properly later and we're in broadcast
> mode already.

Right, that's the safe bet. But I'm quite sure that the C1E crap only
starts to work _after_ ACPI initialization.

> Now, on those machines which are not affected and we clear
> X86_BUG_AMD_APIC_C1E because they don't enter C1E at all, I was thinking
> of maybe doing amd_e400_remove_cpu() and clearing that e400 mask and
> even freeing it so that they can do default_idle().
> 
> But you're saying tick_broadcast_enter() is irreversible?

tick_force_broadcast() is irreversible

Thanks,

	tglx
	

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ