linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 084/208] x86/fpu: Rename xsave.header::xstate

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: <554B8B99.8070602@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 07 May 2015 08:58:17 -0700
From:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo2.kernel.org@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 084/208] x86/fpu: Rename xsave.header::xstate_bv to 'xfeatures'

On 05/07/2015 08:33 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> Btw., regarding XCR0.PKRU: that enables 'Protection Keys' in the 
>>> PTE format. What's the main purpose of these keys? They seem to 
>>> duplicate the read/write bits in the PTE, with the exception that 
>>> they don't impact instruction fetches. So is this used to allow 
>>> user-space to execute but otherwise not read instructions?
>>>
>>> Or some other purpose I missed?
>>
>> You can change the permissions of a given key with writes to the 
>> register without changing the PTE.  No TLB shootdown, plus the 
>> permission changes are local to the CPU thread.
> 
> interesting ... where are we doing that? kmap_atomic() is the only 
> place I can think of in the kernel, but there we are already skipping 
> the TLB shootdown by doing an INVLPG.

Userspace. :)

It's for userspace-only.

>>>> We'd need to determine which fields are in the init state before we 
>>>> do an xsaves.
>>>
>>> Why? I don't think that's necessary.
>>
>> "If RFBM[i] = 0, XSTATE_BV[i] is written as 0."
> 
> Yes, that's natural: RFBM is the combination of XCR0 (constant) and 
> the 'instruction mask' (constant as well) - i.e. it's a wide bitmask 
> including all our xfeatures - essentially 'xfeatures_mask' (in 
> tmp.fpu).
> 
>> We need to pull XSTATE_BV in to the instruction mask when doing an 
>> XSAVE* if our RFBM has bits unset that *are* set in XSTATE_BV. 
>> Otherwise, we'll destroy the bits at XSAVE* time.
> 
> But why would our RFBM be narrower than any possible XSTATE_BV we 
> handle? Our XCR0 is at the max.
> 
> Also, the XSTATE_BV value of the save area is immaterial when we do an 
> XSAVES: all the state is in CPU registers, we want to save it to the 
> save area. XSAVES will write it for us.
> 
>> It's not a problem today because the instruction mask is always -1, 
>> so it always has every bit set that *MIGHT* be set in XSTATE_BV.
> 
> Yes. And why would we ever want to narrow it?

Because it actually allows us to take advantage of the compaction.
Think of the layout of a task using protection keys and MPX.

MPX = 8*4 + 8*2 = 48 bytes.
PKEYs = 4 bytes

They'll be spread out in the standard form *OR* the compacted form with
a RFBM=-1.  But, with the compacted form with RFBM=PK|MPX_BITS, they'll
fit in a cacheline.

>> As for the whole bit 63 thing...  It's possible and valid to have a 
>> XCOMP_BV[62:0]=0 because the instruction mask only contained bits 
>> that were unset in XCR0|IA32_XSS.  You need bit 63 to tell you which 
>> format you are using.
> 
> So basically if you request an XSAVES to ... write nothing (XCR0 AND 
> instruction mask is 0), then it will represent this as 0|1<<63 in 
> XCOMP_BV?
> 
> In that case it does not matter whether the area is compacted or 
> standard: nothing was saved and nothing will have to be restored, only 
> the xsave header area will be accessed. Am I missing something?

Take a look at the SDM.  There are differences in the behavior when
restoring the compacted vs. standard format.  I don't know the deep
reasons for *WHY*, just that there are some deltas clearly spelled out
there.
--
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/