linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/fpu: math_state_restore() should not blindly disable irqs

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: <20150306134601.GA11718@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:46:01 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pekka Riikonen <priikone@....fi>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/fpu: math_state_restore() should not blindly
 disable irqs


* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 03/06, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [...] The patch above looks "obviously safe", but perhaps I am
> > > paranoid too much...
> >
> > IMHO your hack above isn't really acceptable, even for a backport.
> > So lets test the patch below (assuming it's the right thing to do)
> > and move forward?
> 
> OK, but please note that this patch is not beckportable. If you think
> that -stable doesn't need this fix, then I agree.
> 
> If the caller is do_device_not_available(), then we can not enable
> irqs before __thread_fpu_begin() + restore_fpu_checking().
> 
> 1. Preemption in between can destroy ->fpu.state initialized by
>    fpu_finit(), __switch_to() will save the live (wrong) FPU state
>    again.
> 
> 2. kernel_fpu_begin() from irq right after __thread_fpu_begin() is
>    not nice too. It will do __save_init_fpu() and this overwrites
>    ->fpu.state too.
> 
> Starting from v4.0 it does kernel_fpu_disable(), but the older kernels
> do not.
> 
> Ingo, this code is really horrible and fragile. We need to cleanup it
> step-by-step, imho.

How about the patch from David Vrabel? That seems to solve the 
irq-disable problem too, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/