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  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:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:00:33 +0100
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        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 Nov 2, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
>> 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

Can't -- it's microcode, not software, that does that switch.

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

How is that simpler?

> 
>> 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists