linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3]: x86, fpu: unlazy

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:	Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:30:56 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3]: x86, fpu: unlazy_fpu fixes/cleanups

On 01/30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 01/29, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > On 01/29/2015 01:56 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > --- x/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> > > +++ x/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> > > @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ dotraplinkage void do_bounds(struct pt_r
> > >  	 * It is not directly accessible, though, so we need to
> > >  	 * do an xsave and then pull it out of the xsave buffer.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	fpu_save_init(&tsk->thread.fpu);
> > > +	unlazy_fpu(tsk);
> > >  	xsave_buf = &(tsk->thread.fpu.state->xsave);
> > ...
> > > 	bndcsr = get_xsave_addr(xsave_buf, XSTATE_BNDCSR);
> >
> > Hmm, if the the thread was not using the FPU, and this fails to save
> > anything in to the xsave_buf, what will bndcsr point to?  It _looks_ to
> > me like it will just point to uninitialized data since the xsave never
> > happened.
> >
> > Fenghua, shouldn't get_xsave_addr() be checking the xstate bit against
> > the xsave->xstate_bv?
>
> Can't really comment, but let me clarify what I meant just in case...
>
> If it was not using FPU then I guess do_bounds() can't happen. However,
> it can be preempted after conditional_sti(). fpu_save_init() is obviously
> wrong unless __thread_has_fpu() == T, and this can be false if !eagerfpu
> or if we add TIF_LOAD_FPU (defer FPU restore until return to userspace).

Forgot to mention... and if we use unlazy_fpu() we should not worry about
preemption/__thread_has_fpu, we can rely on __save_init_fpu() in __switch_to()
and/or __thread_has_fpu() check in unlazy_fpu().

But I am afraid I misunderstood your concerns, sorry for noise in this case.

Oleg.

--
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/