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:   Wed, 20 Mar 2019 23:22:20 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, tonyj@...e.com,
        nelson.dsouza@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf/x86/intel: Fix memory corruption

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 01:47:28PM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:

> Right now, if I do:
> 
> echo 0 > /sys/bus/event_source/devices/cpu/allow_tsx_force_abort
> 
> Then I don't have the guarantee on when there will be no abort when I
> return from the echo.  the MSR is accessed only on PMU scheduling. I
> would expect a sysadmin to want some guarantee if this is to be
> switched on/off at runtime. If not, then having a boot time option is
> better in my opinion.

Something like cycling the nmi watchdog or:

  perf stat -a -e cycles sleep 1

should be enough to force reschedule the events on every CPU.

Again, I'm not adverse to 'fixing' this if it can be done with limited
LoC. But I don't really see this as critical.

> This other bit I noticed is that cpuc->tfa_shadow is used to avoid the
> wrmsr(), but I don't see the code that makes sure the init value (0)
> matches the value of the MSR.  Is this MSR guarantee to be zero on
> reset? 

That was my understanding.

> How about on kexec()?

Good point, we might want to fix that.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists