linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/17] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave

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: <5511FD59.3040503@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Mar 2015 17:12:09 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Suresh Siddha <sbsiddha@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/17] x86, fpu: wrap get_xsave_addr() to make it safer

On 03/24/2015 04:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>> On 03/24/2015 03:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Your function appears to be getting it for write (I assume that's what
>>> the unlazy_fpu is for), so I'd rather have it called
>>> tsk_get_xsave_field_for_write or something like that.
>>
>> It should be entirely read-only.
>>
>> For MPX (the only user of get_xsave_addr() iirc), we are only worried
>> about getting the status codes (and addresses) out of the bndstatus
>> register and making sure that the kernel-recorded bounds directory
>> address matches the bndcfgu (configuration) register.
>>
>> We don't ever write to the registers.
> 
> So why are you unlazying it?

Oleg actually suggested it.

> IIUC, the xstae for current can be in one of three logical states:
> 
> 1. Live in CPU regs.  The in-memory copy is garbage and the state is
> in CPU regs.
> 2. Lazy.  The in-memory copy and the CPU regs match.  Writing to
> either copy is illegal.
> 3. In memory only.  Writing to the in-memory copy is safe.
> 
> IIUC, you want to read the xstate, do you're okay with #2 or #3.  This
> would be tsk_get_xsave_field_for_read in my terminology.
> 
> If you want to write the xstate, you'd need to be in state #3, which
> would be tsk_get_xsave_field_for_write.
> 
> IIUC, unlazy_fpu just moves from from state 2 to 3.

I won't completely claim to understand what's going on with the FPU
code, but I think your analysis is a bit off.

unlazy_fpu() does __save_init_fpu() which (among other things) calls
xsave to dump the CPU registers to memory.  That doesn't make any sense
to do if "The in-memory copy and the CPU regs match."

IOW, unlazy_fpu() is called when the in-memory copy is garbage and takes
us to a state where we can look at the in-memory copy.
--
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/