linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v4.21

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, 7 Feb 2019 10:46:06 -0800
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/mm changes for v4.21

On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:07:28AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Joining this thread late...
> 
> This is all IMO rather crazy.  How about we fiddle with CR0 to turn off
> the cache, then fiddle with page tables, then turn caching on?  Or, heck,
> see if there’s some chicken bit we can set to improve the situation
> while we’re in the MCE handler.

> Also, since I don’t really want
> to dig into the code to answer this, how exactly do we do a broadcast TLB
> flush from MCE context?  We’re super-duper-atomic, and locks might be
> held on various CPUs.  Shouldn’t we be telling the cpa code to skip
> the flush and then just have the MCE code do a full flush manually?
> The MCE code has already taken over all CPUs on non-LMCE systems.

MCE code doesn't do this while still in MCE context. You helped
restructure this code so the recovery bits happen after we call

	ist_begin_non_atomic(regs);

on just the CPU that hit the error (in the broadcast case we've
let the other out of MCE jail by this point).

So there is a small window where we know the broken page is still
mapped WB in the kernel 1:1 map. But we just live dangerously for
a few more microseconds until we can fix the map.

> Or, better yet, get Intel to fix the hardware. A failed speculative
> access while already in MCE context should just be ignored.

Good idea.

-Tony