| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4C3E5637.4010300@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:28:39 -1000
From: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix ordering constraints on crX read/writes
On 07/14/2010 12:12 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Change d3ca901f94b3299 introduces a new mechanism for sequencing
> accesses to the control registers using a variable to act as a
> dependency. (However, the patch description only says it is unifying
> parts of system.h and makes no mention of this new code.)
>
> This sequencing implementation is flawed in two ways:
> - Firstly, it gets the input/outputs for __force_order wrong on
> the asm statements. __force_order is a proxy for the control
> registers themselves, so a write_crX should write __force_order,
> and conversely for read_crX. The original code got this backwards,
> making write_crX read from __force_order, which in principle would
> allow gcc to eliminate a "redundant" write_crX.
>
> - Secondly, writes to control registers can have drastic
> side-effects on all memory operations (write to cr3 changes the
> current pagetable and redefines the meaning of all addresses,
> for example), so they must clobber "memory" in order to be
> ordered with respect to memory operations.
>
> We seem to have been saved by the implicit ordering that "asm volatile"
> gives us.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge<jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
> Cc: Glauber de Oliveira Costa<gcosta@...hat.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar<mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin"<hpa@...or.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner<tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>
> Cc: Zachary Amsden<zamsden@...hat.com>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/system.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/system.h
> index e7f4d33..b782af2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/system.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/system.h
> @@ -212,53 +212,68 @@ static inline void native_clts(void)
>
> /*
> * Volatile isn't enough to prevent the compiler from reordering the
> - * read/write functions for the control registers and messing everything up.
> - * A memory clobber would solve the problem, but would prevent reordering of
> - * all loads stores around it, which can hurt performance. Solution is to
> - * use a variable and mimic reads and writes to it to enforce serialization
> + * read/write functions for the control registers and messing
> + * everything up. A memory clobber would solve the problem, but would
> + * prevent reordering of all loads stores around it, which can hurt
> + * performance (however, control register writes can have drastic
> + * effects on memory accesses - like switching pagetables and thereby
> + * redefining what an address means - so they still need to clobber
> + * memory).
> + *
> + * Solution is to use a variable and mimic reads and writes to it to
> + * enforce serialization. __force_order acts as a proxy for the
> + * control registers, so a read_crX reads __force_order, and write_crX
> + * writes it (actually both reads and writes it to indicate that
> + * write-over-write can't be "optimised" away).
> + *
> + * This assumes there's no global optimisation between object files,
> + * so using a static per-file "__force_order" is OK. (In theory we
> + * don't need __force_order to be instantiated at all, since it is
> + * never actually read or written to. But gcc might decide to
> + * generate a reference to it anyway, so we need to keep it around.)
> */
> static unsigned long __force_order;
>
> static inline unsigned long native_read_cr0(void)
> {
> unsigned long val;
> - asm volatile("mov %%cr0,%0\n\t" : "=r" (val), "=m" (__force_order));
> + asm volatile("mov %%cr0,%0\n\t" : "=r" (val) : "m" (__force_order));
> return val;
> }
>
> static inline void native_write_cr0(unsigned long val)
> {
> - asm volatile("mov %0,%%cr0": : "r" (val), "m" (__force_order));
> + asm volatile("mov %1,%%cr0": "+m" (__force_order) : "r" (val) : "memory");
> }
>
> static inline unsigned long native_read_cr2(void)
> {
> unsigned long val;
> - asm volatile("mov %%cr2,%0\n\t" : "=r" (val), "=m" (__force_order));
> + asm volatile("mov %%cr2,%0\n\t" : "=r" (val) : "m" (__force_order));
> return val;
> }
>
> static inline void native_write_cr2(unsigned long val)
> {
> - asm volatile("mov %0,%%cr2": : "r" (val), "m" (__force_order));
> + asm volatile("mov %1,%%cr2": "+m" (__force_order) : "r" (val) : "memory");
> }
>
You don't need the memory clobber there. Technically, this should never
be used, however.
>
> static inline unsigned long native_read_cr3(void)
> {
> unsigned long val;
> - asm volatile("mov %%cr3,%0\n\t" : "=r" (val), "=m" (__force_order));
> + asm volatile("mov %%cr3,%0\n\t" : "=r" (val) : "m" (__force_order));
> return val;
> }
>
> static inline void native_write_cr3(unsigned long val)
> {
> - asm volatile("mov %0,%%cr3": : "r" (val), "m" (__force_order));
> + asm volatile("mov %1,%%cr3": "+m" (__force_order) : "r" (val) : "memory");
> }
>
> static inline unsigned long native_read_cr4(void)
> {
> unsigned long val;
> - asm volatile("mov %%cr4,%0\n\t" : "=r" (val), "=m" (__force_order));
> + asm volatile("mov %%cr4,%0\n\t" : "=r" (val) : "m" (__force_order));
> return val;
> }
>
> @@ -271,7 +286,7 @@ static inline unsigned long native_read_cr4_safe(void)
> asm volatile("1: mov %%cr4, %0\n"
> "2:\n"
> _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 2b)
> - : "=r" (val), "=m" (__force_order) : "0" (0));
> + : "=r" (val) : "m" (__force_order), "0" (0));
> #else
> val = native_read_cr4();
> #endif
> @@ -280,7 +295,7 @@ static inline unsigned long native_read_cr4_safe(void)
>
> static inline void native_write_cr4(unsigned long val)
> {
> - asm volatile("mov %0,%%cr4": : "r" (val), "m" (__force_order));
> + asm volatile("mov %1,%%cr4": "+m" (__force_order) : "r" (val) : "memory");
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>
>
>
Looks good. I really hope __force_order gets pruned however. Does it
actually?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists