linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] x86: xsave/xrstor support, ucontext

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]

Message-ID: <20080522212920.GC7998@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 22 May 2008 14:29:21 -0700
From:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, roland@...hat.com, drepper@...hat.com,
	Hongjiu.lu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com, rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk, dan@...ian.org,
	asit.k.mallick@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: xsave/xrstor support, ucontext_t extensions

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 02:02:28PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Suresh Siddha wrote:
> >
> >hpa, What is the virtualization problem? Are you referring to perf problem?
> >As you noted, regular non-rt signal handlers won't need this cpuid check. 
> >It's
> >needed only for those who manually look at non-rt signal frames and 
> >interpret it.
> >And also, they can do this check only once and not everytime.
> >
> 
> No, relying on CPUID and vdso both have implications for virtualization.

can you please elaborate? even in presence of virtualization, appropriate
cpuid bits need to be set/visible for application, for xsave/xrstor to work
properly.

> I don't think it is ... it's not overkill but rather "underkill"... it's 
> a low-performance solution but it's guaranteed to be safe in the 
> presence of virtualization of all its various ilk.  Note that you don't 
> need to be able to *set* the format via prctl(), just *query* (get) it.
>
> Using prctl() allows us to make this personality-dependent if we ever 
> need to.
>
> >While restoring from the user, kernel also need to find out what layout
> >the user is passing. So it's bi-directional. I prefer the same mechanism
> >(using cookies/magic numbers etc inaddition to uc_flags or cpuid checks) to
> >interpret the fpstate for both user/kernel.
> 
> No, it really doesn't: the kernel only needs to be able to read the same 
> format as it itself wrote.

But user can potentially change the _fpstate pointer in sigcontext struct.

> 
> >ARM also seem to be using similar things while extending their ucontext_t,
> >with out other kernel interfaces to indicate the layout.
> >
> >BTW, how come 32bit kernel doesn't have the X86_FXSR_MAGIC checks, while 
> >restoring
> >the extended fxsave data from _fpstate?
> 
> Again, the kernel already knows the format, so it doesn't need to check.

What happens with some old applications which change the _fpstate
pointer. they may or may not be fxsave aware...

thanks,
suresh
--
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/