linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix

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, 18 Oct 2018 03:26:36 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix

at 8:11 PM, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:

> at 6:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> 
>>> On Oct 17, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> It is sometimes beneficial to prevent preemption for very few
>>> instructions, or prevent preemption for some instructions that precede
>>> a branch (this latter case will be introduced in the next patches).
>>> 
>>> To provide such functionality on x86-64, we use an empty REX-prefix
>>> (opcode 0x40) as an indication that preemption is disabled for the
>>> following instruction.
>> 
>> Nifty!
>> 
>> That being said, I think you have a few bugs. First, you can’t just ignore
>> a rescheduling interrupt, as you introduce unbounded latency when this
>> happens — you’re effectively emulating preempt_enable_no_resched(), which
>> is not a drop-in replacement for preempt_enable(). To fix this, you may
>> need to jump to a slow-path trampoline that calls schedule() at the end or
>> consider rewinding one instruction instead. Or use TF, which is only a
>> little bit terrifying…
> 
> Yes, I didn’t pay enough attention here. For my use-case, I think that the
> easiest solution would be to make synchronize_sched() ignore preemptions
> that happen while the prefix is detected. It would slightly change the
> meaning of the prefix.

Ignore this nonsense that I wrote. I’ll try to come up with a decent
solution.

>> You also aren’t accounting for the case where you get an exception that
>> is, in turn, preempted.
> 
> Hmm.. Can you give me an example for such an exception in my use-case? I
> cannot think of an exception that might be preempted (assuming #BP, #MC
> cannot be preempted).
> 
> I agree that for super-general case this might be inappropriate.