linux-kernel - Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point for pvclock

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: <4C3E2406.8060907@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:54:30 -1000
From:	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Palfrader <peter@...frader.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...nel.org, stable-review@...nel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point
 	for pvclock

On 07/14/2010 10:45 AM, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> On 07/14/2010 10:40 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 07/14/2010 01:16 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 07/14/2010 08:57 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>> Anything else?
>>> 1. set up a mapping
>>> 2. invlpg or set cr3
>>> 3. use the mapping
>>>
>>> Moving the invlpg will break your code.
>> invlpg uses memory clobbers.  All the crX ops seem to use a
>> __force_order variable to sequence them - but it looks like it's done
>> precisely backwards and it's barking mad to do allow write_crX to be
>> reordered with respect to memory ops.
>>
>> Hm, looks like glommer added it surreptitiously while unifying
>> system_32.h and system_64.h (system_32.h relied on asm volatile not
>> being reordered; system_64.h used memory clobbers).
>>      J
>
> clts() has no memory clobber; it is used to serialize execution of 
> code within kernel_fpu_begin() / kernel_fpu_end() blocks.
>
> If the code within is reordered before the clts(), we've corrupted 
> guest FPU state.
>
> That's the kind of bug I think Linus is talking about.  We've been 
> expecting volatile to work that way for over a decade, by my 
> recollection, and if it doesn't, there is going to be a lot of broken 
> code.
>
> Shouldn't we at least get a compiler switch to force the volatile 
> behavior?  I'd suggest it default to conservative.

Hmm, well, despite that not being quite correct (if guest has used FPU, 
we save it, which has a memory clobber), it seems to be the case that a 
reordering of the clts() among the other volatile asm statements would 
be a very bad thing - you'd get kernel FPU exceptions.

And among asm volatiles, clts() is fairly unique in not having any 
clobbers or dependencies at all, so it could happen.

Zach
--
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/