linux-kernel - Re: KAISER memory layout (Re: [PATCH 06/23] x86, kaiser: introduce user-mapped percpu areas)

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711021235290.2090@nanos>
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 12:48:20 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
        michael.schwarz@...k.tugraz.at,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: KAISER memory layout (Re: [PATCH 06/23] x86, kaiser: introduce
 user-mapped percpu areas)

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think we're far enough along here that it may be time to nail down
> the memory layout for real.  I propose the following:
> 
> The user tables will contain the following:
> 
>  - The GDT array.
>  - The IDT.
>  - The vsyscall page.  We can make this be _PAGE_USER.

I rather remove it for the kaiser case.

>  - The TSS.
>  - The per-cpu entry stack.  Let's make it one page with guard pages
> on either side.  This can replace rsp_scratch.
>  - cpu_current_top_of_stack.  This could be in the same page as the TSS.
>  - The entry text.
>  - The percpu IST (aka "EXCEPTION") stacks.

Do you really want to put the full exception stacks into that user mapping?
I think we should not do that. There are two options:

  1) Always use the per-cpu entry stack and switch to the proper IST after
     the CR3 fixup

  2) Have separate per-cpu entry stacks for the ISTs and switch to the real
     ones after the CR3 fixup.

> We can either try to move all of the above into the fixmap or we can
> have the user tables be sparse a la Dave's current approach.  If we do
> it the latter way, I think we'll want to add a mechanism to have holes
> in the percpu space to give the entry stack a guard page.
> 
> I would *much* prefer moving everything into the fixmap, but that's a
> wee bit awkward because we can't address per-cpu data in the fixmap
> using %gs, which makes the SYSCALL code awkward.  But we could alias
> the SYSCALL entry text itself per-cpu into the fixmap, which lets us
> use %rip-relative addressing, which is quite nice.
>
> So I guess my preference is to actually try the fixmap approach.  We
> give the TSS the same aliasing treatment we gave the GDT, and I can
> try to make the entry trampoline work through the fixmap and thus not
> need %gs-based addressing until CR3 gets updated.  (This actually
> saves several cycles of latency.)

Makes a lot of sense.

Thanks,

	tglx