linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH] x86, entry: Switch stacks on a paranoid entry from userspace

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: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F3292BD44@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:31:30 +0000
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] x86, entry: Switch stacks on a paranoid entry from
 userspace

> v2's not going to make a difference unless you're using uprobes at the
> same time.

Not (knowingly) using uprobes. System is installed with a RHEL7 userspace ... but is essentially
idle except for my test program.

> In the interest of my sanity, can you add something like
> BUG_ON(!user_mode_vm(regs)) or the mce_panic equivalent before calling
> memory_failure?

I don't think that can possibly trip - we can only end up with a recoverable error from
a user mode access.  But I'll see about adding it anyway

> What happens if there's a shared bank but the actual offender has a
> higher order than the cpu that finds the error?

This test case injects a memory error which is logged in bank1. This bank is shared by the
two hyperthreads that are on the same core.  The mce_severity() function distinguishes
which is the active thread and which the innocent bystander by looking at MCG_STATUS.
In the active thread MCG_STATUS.EIPV is 1, in the bystander it is 0. The returned severity
is MCE_AR_SEVERITY for the thread that hit the error, MCE_KEEP_SEVERITY for the bystander.
So it doesn't matter which thread has the lower order and sees it first.

> Is this something I can try under KVM?

I don't know if KVM has a way to simulate a machine check event.

-Tony