Message-ID: <b0ee2570-c9ba-2a7c-2a8b-0dfa46685e62@amd.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 15:11:17 +0000
From:   Gary R Hook <ghook@....com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Hook, Gary" <Gary.Hook@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/mem_encrypt: Disable all instrumentation for SME
 early boot code

On 4/8/19 2:08 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:On 5/8/19 2:08 PM, Borislav 
Petkov wrote:> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 06:41:30PM +0000, Gary R Hook 
wrote:
 >> Again, not arguing. I completely understand. However, to be fair, 
this
 >> isn't about SME having trouble with those facilities, this is about 

 >> using certain features (e.g. command line option processing) early 
in
 >> the boot. Any complex feature could have had that requirement, don't 
you
 >> think? 

 >
 > Sure, but then why do we need that patch at all then? Why do we need to
 > disable instrumentation for SME early code and not for other early code?
 >
 > I mean, if you grep around the tree you can see a bunch of
 > KASAN_SANITIZE but in lib/ we only have
 >
 > lib/Makefile:210:KASAN_SANITIZE_stackdepot.o := n
 >
 > which is special. But the rest of the generic code in lib/ or
 > arch/x86/lib/ isn't.
 >
 > Now, there's this:
 >
 > arch/x86/boot/Makefile:12:KASAN_SANITIZE                        := n
 > arch/x86/boot/compressed/Makefile:20:KASAN_SANITIZE 
   := n
 >
 > which disables KASAN for all boot code.
 >
 > And this is what you mean - all early boot code should not be sanitized.
 >
 > Which also gives the right solution, IMO:
 >
 > cmdline.o should not be sanitized only when used in the boot code. But
 > that is already the case.
 >
 > So why do you need to disable KASAN for arch/x86/lib/cmdline.c?
 >
 > Because for those two:
 >
 > arch/x86/boot/cmdline.c
 > arch/x86/boot/compressed/cmdline.c
 >
 > that should already be the case due to the Makefile defines above.

Except that we're not talking about that code.


I probably should have defined terms, so please allow me to back up. 
When I say "early boot" I meant what happens -after- decompression, when 
the kernel proper has been laid out in memory and starts to run.  This 
is -after- the boot code has been executed, which means that the 
cmdline.c to which you refer above is no longer extant in memory.

If my usage of the term "early boot" is a misnomer, I can only 
apologize.  And ask what term is in common use to describe what is 
happening at that point in time.

Since, for this discussion, we're already in start_kernel(), the only 
cmdline.c available is the one in arch/x86/lib. That's that one that is 
instrumented by KASAN, and the one that is causing problems in this 
scenario. The strncmp(), too.

 >> Right. My goal was to get a conversation started, because folks are
 >> running into this problem when KASAN is enabled.
 >
 > You say KASAN. Why is there KCOV_INSTRUMENT_cmdline.o too?

I don't care if KCOV_INSTRUMENT is enabled or not, but it's disabled for 
arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt_identity.c, so it seems reasonable that it 
should be disable for this file, too, in the context of resolving this 
problem.

To be more precise, the change is for "instrumentation", in general.


 >> N.B. Here's another facet of this problem: cmdline.c doesn't (today)
 >> contain anything that would trigger the stack protector. However, it's
 >> possible to enable the stack protector globally when building, right? In
 >> which case, a boot would fail, so we have the same issue: early boot
 >> code has special requirements / restrictions.
 >
 > How so?

<sidebar>
Makefile contains

     stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR)             := -fstack-protector
     stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG)      := 
-fstack-protector-strong

This means that (as I understand it) stack protection is decided by the 
compiler, and is based on certain conditions in the code. This implies 
that not every function will necessarily be instrumented.

However, if you decide to force the issue with something like

     stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR)             := 
-fstack-protector-full
     stackp-flags-$(CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG)      := 
-fstack-protector-all

Unless otherwise disabled, I believe this causes everything to be 
instrumented.  Which results in a boot failure. (Actually, in my tests 
the system restarts after the decompression.) Note that intrumentation 
such as KASAN isn't involved here. And I figure that doing this is 
unsupported. It was just an interesting discovery.
</sidebar>

However, not relevant to the KASAN instrumentation problem.

Recap:

mem_encrypt_identity.c uses two common functions. The code in 
mem_encrypt_identity.c runs soon after start_kernel() is invoked. The 
SME feature command line parameter is searched for, and uses those two 
common functions.

If instrumentation is enabled, it is applied to those to common 
functions (but not mem_encrypt_identity.c). But if support 
infrastructure for instrumentation is not initialized before the code in 
mem_encrypt_identity is invoked, the kernel fails to boot.

After discussion over several weeks, we see the following options for a 
solution:

1) Create a local static copy of strncmp in mem_encrypt_identity.c

2) Turn off instrumentation for lib/cmdline.c. The risk is that any
    changes to its code would not enjoy the benefits of KASAN/etc testing
    (if enabled).

3) Make a local static copy of cmdline_find_option() inside of
    mem_encrypt_identity.c.

4) Use #defines and #include to have cmdline.c included within
    mem_encrypt_identity.c. This maintains a single source file and
    continues to allow the function to be instrumented for use everywhere
    elsewhere in the kernel.

We believe (1) is a simple and effective choice, similar to inlining.

If a single source file (for cmdline.c) is preferred, option (4) 
maintains that paradigm but gets the job done fairly cleanly. I 
understand if there is reticience about include source files, but it's 
not IMO an abhorrent practice. This also points to a single file as the 
origin of the required function, so no confusion ensues.

I believe TGLX raised the issue of "what happens if we find a bug in 
cmdline_find_option()?" Despite the fact that the file has been changed 
only once in 4 years (by Thomas) it's an important consideration. 
Another reason I lean towards (4), above.

I'm -hoping- this is more clear and succinct. How shall we proceed?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists