linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/2] x86_64 page fault NMI-safe

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:	Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:04:19 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...tedt.homelinux.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] x86_64 page fault NMI-safe

On 07/18/2010 08:36 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Avi Kivity<avi@...hat.com>  wrote:
>    
>> By trading off some memory, we don't need this trickery.  We can allocate
>> two nmi stacks, so the code becomes:
>>      
> I really don't think you need even that. See earlier in the discussion
> about how we could just test %rsp itself. Which makes all the %rip
> testing totally unnecessary, because we don't even need any flags,and
> we have no races because %rsp is atomically changed with taking the
> exception.
>
> Lookie here, the %rsp comparison really isn't that hard:
>
>    nmi:
>        pushq %rax
>        pushq %rdx
>        movq %rsp,%rdx          # current stack top
>        movq 40(%rsp),%rax   # old stack top
>        xor %rax,%rdx              # same 8kB aligned area?
>        shrq $13,%rdx             # ignore low 13 bits
>        je it_is_a_nested_nmi   # looks nested..
>
>    

...

> doesn't that look pretty simple?
>
>    

Too simple - an MCE will switch to its own stack, failing the test.  Now 
that we have correctable MCEs, that's not a good idea.

So the plain everyday sequence

   NMI
   #PF
   MCE (uncompleted)
   NMI

will fail.

Plus, even in the non-nested case, you have to copy the stack frame, or 
the nested NMI will corrupt it.  With stack switching, the nested NMI is 
allocated its own frame.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/