linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf/x86/intel: Fix memory corruption

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: <20190321171047.GR5996@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 18:10:47 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        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 Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 05:45:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Subject: perf/x86/intel: Initialize TFA MSR
> > 
> > Stephane reported that we don't initialize the TFA MSR, which could lead
> > to trouble if the RESET value is not 0 or on kexec.
> 
> That sentence doesn't parse.
> 
>   Stephane reported that the TFA MSR is not initialized by the kernel, but
>   the TFA bit could set by firmware or as a leftover from a kexec, which
>   makes the state inconsistent.
> 
> > Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > index 8baa441d8000..2d3caf2d1384 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > @@ -3575,6 +3575,12 @@ static void intel_pmu_cpu_starting(int cpu)
> >  
> >  	cpuc->lbr_sel = NULL;
> >  
> > +	if (x86_pmu.flags & PMU_FL_TFA) {
> > +		WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuc->tfa_shadow);
> 
> Hmm. I wouldn't warn here as this is a legit state for kexec/kdump and I
> don't think we can figure out whether this comes directly from the
> firmware.

Even on kexec, the cpuc will be freshly allocated and zerod I think. We
only inherit hardware state, not software state.