linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Linux VM workaround for Knights Landing A/D leak

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: <2471A3E8-FF69-4720-A3BF-BDC6094A6A70@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:16:29 -0700
From:	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...e.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, harish.srinivasappa@...el.com,
	lukasz.odzioba@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux VM workaround for Knights Landing A/D leak

Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> On 06/14/2016 09:47 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@...el.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
>>>> +void fix_pte_leak(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep)
>>>> +{
>> Here there should be a call to smp_mb__after_atomic() to synchronize with
>> switch_mm. I submitted a similar patch, which is still pending (hint).
>> 
>>>> +	if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids) {
>>>> +		trace_tlb_flush(TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
>>>> +		flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, addr,
>>>> +				 addr + PAGE_SIZE);
>>>> +		mb();
>>>> +		set_pte(ptep, __pte(0));
>>>> +	}
>>>> +}
> 
> Shouldn't that barrier be incorporated in the TLB flush code itself and
> not every single caller (like this code is)?
> 
> It is insane to require individual TLB flushers to be concerned with the
> barriers.

IMHO it is best to use existing flushing interfaces instead of creating
new ones. 

In theory, fix_pte_leak could have used flush_tlb_page. But the problem
is that flush_tlb_page requires the vm_area_struct as an argument, which
ptep_get_and_clear (and others) do not have.

I don’t know which architecture needs the vm_area_struct, since x86 and
some others I looked at (e.g., ARM) only need the mm_struct.

Nadav