linux-kernel - Re: xgetbv nondeterminism

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: <CALCETrWCSO3R6USiATLU-X0f9mMFGop6rrayTfeBxrx2GPC4ow@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2017 15:45:32 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: xgetbv nondeterminism

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:40 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/14/2017 10:18 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> Dave, why is XINUSE exposed at all to userspace?
>>>
>>> You need it for XSAVEOPT when it is using the init optimization to be
>>> able to tell which state was written and which state in the XSAVE buffer
>>> is potentially stale with respect to what's in the registers.  I guess
>>> you can just use XSAVE instead of XSAVEOPT, though.
>>>
>>> As you pointed out, if you are using XSAVEC's compaction features by
>>> leaving bits unset in the requested feature bitmap registers, you have
>>> no idea how much data XSAVEC will write, unless you read XINUSE with
>>> XGETBV.  But, you can get around *that* by just presizing the XSAVE
>>> buffer to be big.
>>
>> I imagine that, if you're going to save, do something quick, and
>> restore, you'd be better off allocating a big buffer rather than
>> trying to find the smallest buffer you can get away with by reading
>> XINUSE.  Also, what happens if XINUSE nondeterministically changes out
>> from under you before you do XSAVEC?  I assume you can avoid this
>> becoming a problem by using RFBM carefully.
>>
>>>
>>> So, I guess that leaves its use to just figuring out how much XSAVEOPT
>>> (and friends) are going to write.
>>>
>>>> To be fair, glibc uses this new XGETBV feature, but I suspect its
>>>> usage is rather dubious.  Shouldn't it just do XSAVEC directly rather
>>>> than rolling its own code?
>>>
>>> A quick grep through my glibc source only shows XGETBV(0) used which
>>> reads XCR0.  I don't see any XGETBV(1) which reads XINUSE.  Did I miss it.
>>
>> Take a look at sysdeps/x86_64/dl-trampoline.h in a new enough version.
>
> I wrote a test to compare latency against different approaches.   This
> is on Skylake:
>
> [hjl@...-skl-1 glibc-test]$ make
> ./test
> move    : 47212
> fxsave  : 719440
> xsave   : 925146
> xsavec  : 811036
> xsave_state_size: 1088
> xsave_state_comp_size: 896
>
> load/store is about 17X faster than xsavec.
>
> I put my hjl/pr21265/xsavec branch at
>
> https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=summary
>
> It uses xsave/xsave/xsavec in _dl_runtime_resolve.

What is this used for?  Is it just to avoid clobbering argument regs
when resolving a symbol that uses an ifunc, or is there more to it?