linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/arch_prctl: Add ARCH_SET

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: <CABV8kRyWFJN1r8HtNrDGMCEDUEiCS=p0n8xucO9T5B1AvCDZVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:13:29 -0400
From:   Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>,
        "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/arch_prctl: Add ARCH_SET_XCR0 to mask XCR0 per-thread

>> 4) Catch the fault thrown by xsaves/xrestors in this situation, update
>>     XCR0, redo the xsaves/restores, put XCR0 back and continue
>>     execution after the faulting instruction.
>
> I'm worried about the kernel pieces that go digging in the XSAVE data
> getting confused more than the hardware getting confused.

So you prefer this option? If so, I can try to have a go at implementing it
this way and seeing if I run into any trouble.

>> At least currently, it is my understanding that `xfeatures_mask` only has
>> user features, am I mistaken about that?
>
> We're slowing adding supervisor support.  I think accounting for
> supervisor features is a requirement for any new XSAVE code.

Sure, I don't think this is in any way incompatible with that (though
probably also informs that we want to keep the memory layout the
same if possible).