| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:04:53 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Erik Bosman <ebn310@....vu.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Kerrisk-manpages <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,seccomp,prctl: Remove PR_TSC_SIGSEGV and seccomp TSC filtering
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:44:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 01:27:52PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > We could make the rule be that RDPMC is enabled if a perf event is
>> > > mmapped or TIF_SECCOMP is clear, but I'd prefer to be convinced that
>> > > there's an actual performance issue first. Ideally we can get this
>> > > all working with no API or ABI change at all.
>> >
>> > No, we can't use that rule. But we could say that RDPMC is enabled if
>> > a perf event is mmapped and no thread in the mm uses seccomp. I'll
>> > grumble a little bit about adding yet another piece of seccomp state.
>>
>> Well, we could simply disable the RDPMC for everything TIF_SECCOMP.
>> Should be fairly straight fwd.
>
>
> Something like so.. slightly less ugly and possibly with more
> complicated conditions setting the cr4 if you want to fix tsc vs seccomp
> as well.
This will crash anything that tries rdpmc in an allow-everything
seccomp sandbox. It's also not very compatible with my grand scheme
of allowing rdtsc to be turned off without breaking clock_gettime. :)
I'll send out a real set of patches in the next few days. I'll even
try to benchmark them :)
>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
> arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> index 16c73022306e..cfc42ff5d901 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -1869,6 +1869,17 @@ static ssize_t set_attr_rdpmc(struct device *cdev,
> return count;
> }
>
> +void perf_change_rdpmc(bool on, unsigned long *cr4)
> +{
> + if (x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc_broken)
> + return;
> +
> + if (on)
> + *cr4 |= X86_CR4_PCE;
> + else
> + *cr4 &= ~X86_CR4_PCE;
> +}
> +
> static DEVICE_ATTR(rdpmc, S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR, get_attr_rdpmc, set_attr_rdpmc);
>
> static struct attribute *x86_pmu_attrs[] = {
> @@ -1928,7 +1939,7 @@ void arch_perf_update_userpage(struct perf_event_mmap_page *userpg, u64 now)
>
> userpg->cap_user_time = 0;
> userpg->cap_user_time_zero = 0;
> - userpg->cap_user_rdpmc = x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc;
> + userpg->cap_user_rdpmc = x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc && test_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP);
> userpg->pmc_width = x86_pmu.cntval_bits;
>
> if (!sched_clock_stable())
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> index e127ddaa2d5a..b74c0400851e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> @@ -201,12 +201,15 @@ void __switch_to_xtra(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p,
> struct tss_struct *tss)
> {
> struct thread_struct *prev, *next;
> + struct thread_info *pi, *ni;
>
> prev = &prev_p->thread;
> next = &next_p->thread;
>
> - if (test_tsk_thread_flag(prev_p, TIF_BLOCKSTEP) ^
> - test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_BLOCKSTEP)) {
> + pi = task_thread_info(prev_p);
> + ni = task_thread_info(next_p);
> +
> + if ((pi->flags & _TIF_BLOCKSTEP) ^ (ni->flags & _TIF_BLOCKSTEP)) {
> unsigned long debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
>
> debugctl &= ~DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
> @@ -216,13 +219,20 @@ void __switch_to_xtra(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p,
> update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
> }
>
> - if (test_tsk_thread_flag(prev_p, TIF_NOTSC) ^
> - test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_NOTSC)) {
> + if ((pi->flags & (_TIF_NOTSC | _TIF_SECCOMP)) ^
> + (ni->flags & (_TIF_NOTSC | _TIF_SECCOMP))) {
> + extern void perf_change_rdpmc(bool, unsigned long *);
> + unsigned long cr4 = read_cr4();
> +
> /* prev and next are different */
> - if (test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_NOTSC))
> - hard_disable_TSC();
> + if (ni->flags & _TIF_NOTSC)
> + cr4 |= X86_CR4_TSD;
> else
> - hard_enable_TSC();
> + cr4 &= ~X86_CR4_TSD;
> +
> + perf_change_rdpmc(!(ni->flags & _TIF_SECCOMP), &cr4);
> +
> + write_cr4(cr4);
> }
>
> if (test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_IO_BITMAP)) {
--
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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