linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/fpu: copy MXCSR & MXCSR

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]

Date:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:18:21 -0800
From:   Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To:     Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:     mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, luto@...nel.org,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, bp@...e.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/fpu: copy MXCSR & MXCSR_FLAGS with SSE/YMM state

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 08:00:11PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 16:45 -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 06:43:47PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >  /*
> > > + * Weird legacy quirk: SSE and YMM states store information in the
> > > + * MXCSR and MXCSR_FLAGS fields of the FP area. That means if the
> > > FP
> > > + * area is marked as unused in the xfeatures header, we need to
> > > copy
> > > + * MXCSR and MXCSR_FLAGS if either SSE or YMM are in use.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline bool xfeatures_need_mxcsr_copy(u64 xfeatures)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!(xfeatures & (XFEATURE_MASK_SSE|XFEATURE_MASK_YMM)))
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > > +	if (xfeatures & XFEATURE_MASK_FP)
> > > +		return 0;
> > > +
> > > +	return 1;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Would you consider separating MXCSR & MXCSR_FLAGS from
> > XFEATURE_MASK_FP.  Here we assume if both xstate[0] and xstate[1]
> > are being copied, then there is no need to copy MXCSR/MXCSR_FLAGS
> > again.  What if only xstate[0] is copied and MXCSR/MXCSR_FLAGS
> > is invalid?
> 
> Surely then the CPU would ignore the contents of
> MXCSR/MXCSR_FLAGS because the SSE and YMM bits in
> the xfeatures header are clear?
> 
> What am I missing?

For example in copy_user_to_xstate(), is it possible that only
xstate[0] is copied in, but in fact the task already has a valid
xstate[1] and MXCSR is overwritten?  We can think about this
as a separate patch.

Thanks,
Yu-cheng