linux-kernel - Re: [v3 04/12] x86/fsgsbase/64: Enable FSGSBASE instructions in the helper functions

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]

Date:   Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:00:35 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [v3 04/12] x86/fsgsbase/64: Enable FSGSBASE instructions in the
 helper functions

On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 12:32 AM Bae, Chang Seok
<chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 2018, at 12:16, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:43 AM Chang S. Bae <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
> >> void x86_fsbase_write_cpu(unsigned long fsbase)
> >> {
> >> -       /*
> >> -        * Set the selector to 0 as a notion, that the segment base is
> >> -        * overwritten, which will be checked for skipping the segment load
> >> -        * during context switch.
> >> -        */
> >> -       loadseg(FS, 0);
> >> -       wrmsrl(MSR_FS_BASE, fsbase);
> >> +       if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE)) {
> >> +               wrfsbase(fsbase);
> >> +       } else {
> >> +               /*
> >> +                * Set the selector to 0 as a notion, that the segment base is
> >> +                * overwritten, which will be checked for skipping the segment load
> >> +                * during context switch.
> >> +                */
> >> +               loadseg(FS, 0);
> >> +               wrmsrl(MSR_FS_BASE, fsbase);
> >> +       }
> >> }
> >>
> >> void x86_gsbase_write_cpu_inactive(unsigned long gsbase)
> >> {
> >> -       /* Set the selector to 0 for the same reason as %fs above. */
> >> -       loadseg(GS, 0);
> >> -       wrmsrl(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, gsbase);
> >> +       if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE)) {
> >> +               wr_inactive_gsbase(gsbase);
> >> +       } else {
> >> +               /* Set the selector to 0 for the same reason as %fs above. */
> >> +               loadseg(GS, 0);
> >> +               wrmsrl(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE, gsbase);
> >
> > I still don't get what this code is trying to do.  See other email.  I
> > think it will straight up crash the kernel on some CPUs, since writing
> > 0 to %%gs will zero out the *active* base on some CPUs.
> >
>
> On those CPUs, how the old do_arch_prctl_64() worked?
> loadseg(GS, 0) eventually hits the native_load_gs_index entry, where actual
> mov …, %gs is wrapped by two SWAPGSes. So, it won’t cause the side effect
> of overwriting the *active* base, I think.
>
> > I think that, if you really want some fancy optimization for the
> > non-FSGSBASE case, you need to pull that out into the callers of these
> > helpers.
>

I was thinking of loadsegment, not loadseg.  Sorry!