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: <CALCETrXOPc3j8dC3rMS1jbcAofZkXDhFupbtHZgYw1JpmZasOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Nov 2014 11:57:22 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86, entry: Switch stacks on a paranoid entry from userspace

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 09:56:38PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
>> ...
>> But I think that means we need more than one of these structures ...
>> we may not be done with one before a new machine check occurs. So
>> we'd have to make an NMI-safe allocator to grab one for use inside
>> do_machine_check()
>
> Well, I think we might do something with a lockless list as it is being
> done in ghes.c.
>
> It allocates entries from its own pool in the NMI handler and
> llist_add's them to a list.
>
> Then, in user context it does llist_del_all and then looks at each of
> the elements at leisure and stress-free :-)
>
> Pool alloc/free is NMI-safe too so we should be good. It looks pretty
> clean, I'd give it a try.

Would it be worth making a decision on task_work_add vs. stack switching first?

Stack switching pros: all this lockless allocation stuff is completely
unnecessary, and it's plausible that the stack switching code will be
added anyway.

task_work_add pros: conceptually simpler mce.c diff.

Tony, did the code survive your new stress test?

--Andy

>
>> General testing note - one thing I did see was that if inject 1000
>> errors at 0.3s interval from my ssh'd login ... the serial console
>> keeps streaming messages for about 40 seconds after my test says it is
>> all done. This might be a factor in the other tests I've been running
>> against the stack-switching code (especially with extra debug) ... at
>> some point __log_buf must get full - what happens then?
>
> Start gets overwritten AFAICR.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
> --



-- 
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/