linux-kernel - Re: [patch 51/60] x86/mm: Allow flushing for future ASID switches

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171204224757.GC20227@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:47:57 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>, aliguori@...zon.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, michael.schwarz@...k.tugraz.at,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at,
        richard.fellner@...dent.tugraz.at, abanman@....com,
        mike.travis@....com
Subject: Re: [patch 51/60] x86/mm: Allow flushing for future ASID switches

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:22:54PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> > +static inline void invalidate_pcid_other(void)
> > +{
> > +       /*
> > +        * With global pages, all of the shared kenel page tables
> > +        * are set as _PAGE_GLOBAL.  We have no shared nonglobals
> > +        * and nothing to do here.
> > +        */
> > +       if (!static_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_CPU_SECURE_MODE_KPTI))
> > +               return;
> 
> I think I'd be more comfortable if this check were in the caller, not
> here.  Shouldn't a function called invalidate_pcid_other() do what the
> name says?

Yeah, you're probably right. The thing is course that we only ever need
that operation for kpti (as of now). But me renaming this stuff made
this problem :/

> > +       this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.invalidate_other, true);
> 
> Why do we need this extra variable instead of just looping over all
> other ASIDs and invalidating them?  It would be something like:
> 
>         for (i = 1; i < TLB_NR_DYN_ASIDS; i++) {
>                 if (i != this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm_asid))
>                        this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[i].ctx_id, 0);
>         }
> 
> modulo epic whitespace damage and possible typos.

I think the point is that we can do many invalidate_other's before we
ever do a switch_mm(). The above would be more expensive.

Not sure it would matter in practise though.

> >  static inline void __flush_tlb_one(unsigned long addr)
> >  {
> >         count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ONE);
> >         __flush_tlb_single(addr);
> > +       /*
> > +        * Invalidate other address spaces inaccessible to single-page
> > +        * invalidation:
> > +        */
> 
> Ugh.  If I'm reading this right, __flush_tlb_single() means "flush one
> user address" and __flush_tlb_one() means "flush one kernel address".

That would make sense, woulnd't it? :-) But afaict the __flush_tlb_one()
user in tlb_uv.c is in fact for userspace and should be
__flush_tlb_single().

Andrew, Mike, can either of you shed light on what exactly you need
invalidated there?

> That's, um, not exactly obvious.  Could this be at least commented
> better?

As is __flush_tlb_single() does user and __flush_tlb_one() does
user+kernel.