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: <3878B27E-756E-4086-93BE-B4799A70570F@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:35:17 -0700
From:	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Lukasz Anaczkowski <lukasz.anaczkowski@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Michal Hocko <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

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Dave Hansen
> <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On 06/14/2016 01:16 PM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Yeah, or make these things a _little_ harder to get wrong.  That little
>> snippet above isn't so crazy that we should be depending on open-coded
>> barriers to get it right.
>> 
>> Should we just add a barrier to mm_cpumask() itself?  That should stop
>> the race.  Or maybe we need a new primitive like:
>> 
>> /*
>> * Call this if a full barrier has been executed since the last
>> * pagetable modification operation.
>> */
>> static int __other_cpus_need_tlb_flush(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> {
>>        /* cpumask_any_but() returns >= nr_cpu_ids if no cpus set. */
>>        return cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) <
>>                nr_cpu_ids;
>> }
>> 
>> 
>> static int other_cpus_need_tlb_flush(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> {
>>        /*
>>         * Synchronizes with switch_mm.  Makes sure that we do not
>>         * observe a bit having been cleared in mm_cpumask() before
>>         * the other processor has seen our pagetable update.  See
>>         * switch_mm().
>>         */
>>        smp_mb__after_atomic();
>> 
>>        return __other_cpus_need_tlb_flush(mm)
>> }
>> 
>> We should be able to deploy other_cpus_need_tlb_flush() in most of the
>> cases where we are doing "cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm),
>> smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids".
> 
> IMO this is a bit nuts.  smp_mb__after_atomic() doesn't do anything on
> x86.  And, even if it did, why should the flush code assume that the
> previous store was atomic?
> 
> What's the issue being fixed / worked around here?

It does a compiler barrier, which prevents the decision whether a
remote TLB shootdown is required to be made before the PTE is set.

I agree that PTEs may not be written atomically in certain cases
(although I am unaware of such cases, except on full-mm flush).

Having said that, I think that all the TLB flush/shootdown logic
should not be open-coded at all and be left in the arch-specific
implementation. People keep making small mistakes when they 
reimplement the flushing logic.

This patch, for example, also has a bug in the way it traces the
flush - it marks full flush, when it flushes a single page:
>>>>>>> trace_tlb_flush(TLB_LOCAL_SHOOTDOWN, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);


Regards,
Nadav