linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/cpu/AMD: Use LFENCE_RDTSC instead of MFENCE

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: <20180108164803.GF2462@work-vm>
Date:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 16:48:04 +0000
From:   "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, bp@...en8.de,
        dwmw@...zon.co.uk, gregkh@...ux-foundation.org, pjt@...gle.com,
        mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/pti] x86/cpu/AMD: Use LFENCE_RDTSC instead of
 MFENCE_RDTSC

* Andrew Cooper (andrew.cooper3@...rix.com) wrote:
> On 08/01/18 14:47, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> > On 1/8/2018 5:10 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 08/01/18 10:08, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 6 Jan 2018, tip-bot for Tom Lendacky wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Commit-ID:  0bf17c102177d5da9363bf8b1e4704b9996d5079
> >>>>> Gitweb:     https://git.kernel.org/tip/0bf17c102177d5da9363bf8b1e4704b9996d5079
> >>>>> Author:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
> >>>>> AuthorDate: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 10:07:56 -0600
> >>>>> Committer:  Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> >>>>> CommitDate: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 21:57:40 +0100
> >>>>>
> >>>>> x86/cpu/AMD: Use LFENCE_RDTSC instead of MFENCE_RDTSC
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With LFENCE now a serializing instruction, set the LFENCE_RDTSC
> >>>>> feature since the LFENCE instruction has less overhead than the
> >>>>> MFENCE instruction.
> >>>> Second thoughts on that. As pointed out by someone in one of the insane
> >>>> long threads:
> >>>>
> >>>> What happens if the kernel runs as a guest and
> >>>>
> >>>>   - the hypervisor did not set the LFENCE to serializing on the host
> >>>>
> >>>>   - the hypervisor does not allow writing MSR_AMD64_DE_CFG
> >>>>
> >>>> That would bring the guest into a pretty bad state or am I missing
> >>>> something essential here?
> >>> What I did in Xen was to attempt to set it, then read it back and see. 
> >>> If LFENCE still isn't serialising, using repoline is the only available
> >>> mitigation.
> >>>
> >>> My understanding from the folk at AMD is that retpoline is safe to use,
> >>> but has higher overhead than the LFENCE approach.
> > Correct, the retpoline will work, it just takes more cycles.
> >
> >> That still does not help vs. rdtsc_ordered() and LFENCE_RDTSC ...
> > Ok, I can add the read-back check before setting the feature flag(s).
> >
> > But... what about the case where the guest is a different family than
> > hypervisor? If we're on, say, a Fam15h hypervisor but the guest is started
> > as a Fam0fh guest where the MSR doesn't exist and LFENCE is supposed to be
> > serialized?  I'll have to do a rdmsr_safe() and only set the flag(s) if I
> > can successfully read the MSR back and validate the bit.
> 
> If your hypervisor is lying to you about the primary family, then all
> bets are off.  I don't expect there will be any production systems doing
> this.

It's not that an unusual thing to do on qemu/kvm - to specify the lowest
common denominator of the set of CPUs in your data centre (for any one
vendor); it does tend to get some weird combinations.

Dave

> The user can get to keep both pieces if they've decided that this was a
> good thing to try.
> 
> ~Andrew
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@...hat.com / Manchester, UK