linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix 32-bit KVM-PR lockup and panic with MacOS guest

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: <87mumsbcnl.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:55:10 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@...nde.co.uk>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>, paulus@...ba.org,
        npiggin@...il.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: fix 32-bit KVM-PR lockup and panic with MacOS guest

Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayland@...nde.co.uk> writes:
> On 11/02/2019 00:30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 14:51 +0000, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed, but there are still some questions to be asked here:
>>>
>>> 1) Why were these bits removed from the original bitmask in the first place without
>>> it being documented in the commit message?
>>>
>>> 2) Is this the right fix? I'm told that MacOS guests already run without this patch
>>> on a G5 under 64-bit KVM-PR which may suggest that this is a workaround for another
>>> bug elsewhere in the 32-bit powerpc code.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you think that these points don't matter, then I'm happy to resubmit the patch
>>> as-is based upon your comments above.
>> 
>> We should write a test case to verify that FE0/FE1 are properly
>> preserved/context-switched etc... I bet if we accidentally wiped them,
>> we wouldn't notice 99.9% of the time.
>
> Right I guess it's more likely to cause in issue in the KVM PR case because the guest
> can alter the flags in a way that doesn't go through the normal process switch mechanism.
>
> The original patchset at
> https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg98326.html does include
> some tests in the first few patches, but AFAICT they are concerned with the contents
> of the FP registers rather than the related MSRs.

fpu_preempt.c should be able to be adapted to also check the MSR bits.

> Who is the right person to ask about fixing issues related to context switching with
> KVM PR?

KVM PR doesn't really have a maintainer TBH. Feel like volunteering? :)

> I did add the original author's email address to my first few emails but have
> had no response back :/

Cyril who wrote the original FPU patch has moved on to other things.

cheers