Message-Id: <F1D424D8-B210-47E3-9E56-FFFF0305BF86@amacapital.net>
Date:   Wed, 1 May 2019 17:29:55 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v6 08/12] x86/fsgsbase/64: Use the per-CPU base as GSBASE at the paranoid_entry



> On May 1, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Bae, Chang Seok <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On May 1, 2019, at 13:25, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 1, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Bae, Chang Seok <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> On May 1, 2019, at 11:01, Bae, Chang Seok <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> On May 1, 2019, at 10:40, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 6:52 AM Bae, Chang Seok <chang.seok.bae@...el.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2019, at 06:50, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Furthermore, if you folks even want me to review this series, the ptrace tests need to be in place.  On inspection of the current code (after the debacle a few releases back), it appears the SETREGSET’s effect depends on the current values in the registers — it does not actually seem to reliably load the whole state. So my confidence will be greatly increased if your series first adds a test that detects that bug (and fails!), then fixes the bug in a tiny little patch, then adds FSGSBASE, and keeps the test working.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think I need to understand the issue. Appreciate if you can elaborate a little bit.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> This patch series gives a particular behavior to PTRACE_SETREGS and
>>>>> PTRACE_POKEUSER.  There should be a test case that validates that
>>>>> behavior, including testing the weird cases where gs != 0 and gsbase
>>>>> contains unusual values.  Some existing tests might be pretty close to
>>>>> doing what's needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Beyond that, the current putreg() code does this:
>>>>> 
>>>>> case offsetof(struct user_regs_struct,gs_base):
>>>>>    /*
>>>>>     * Exactly the same here as the %fs handling above.
>>>>>     */
>>>>>    if (value >= TASK_SIZE_MAX)
>>>>>        return -EIO;
>>>>>    if (child->thread.gsbase != value)
>>>>>        return do_arch_prctl_64(child, ARCH_SET_GS, value);
>>>>>    return 0;
>>>>> 
>>>>> and do_arch_prctl_64(), in turn, does this:
>>>>> 
>>>>> case ARCH_SET_GS: {
>>>>>    if (unlikely(arg2 >= TASK_SIZE_MAX))
>>>>>        return -EPERM;
>>>>> 
>>>>>    preempt_disable();
>>>>>    /*
>>>>>     * ARCH_SET_GS has always overwritten the index
>>>>>     * and the base. Zero is the most sensible value
>>>>>     * to put in the index, and is the only value that
>>>>>     * makes any sense if FSGSBASE is unavailable.
>>>>>     */
>>>>>    if (task == current) {
>>>>>     [not used for ptrace]
>>>>>    } else {
>>>>>        task->thread.gsindex = 0;
>>>>>        x86_gsbase_write_task(task, arg2);
>>>>>    }
>>>>> 
>>>>>    ...
>>>>> 
>>>>> So writing the value that was already there to gsbase via putreg()
>>>>> does nothing, but writing a *different* value implicitly clears gs,
>>>>> but writing a different value will clear gs.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This behavior is, AFAICT, complete nonsense.  It happens to work
>>>>> because usually gdb writes the same value back, and, in any case, gs
>>>>> comes *after* gsbase in user_regs_struct, so gs gets replaced anyway.
>>>>> But I think that this behavior should be fixed up and probably tested.
>>>>> Certainly the behavior should *not* be the same on a fsgsbase kernel,
>>>>> and and the fsgsbase behavior definitely needs a selftest.
>>>> 
>>>> Okay, got the point; now crystal clear.
>>>> 
>>>> I have my own test case for that though, need to find a very simple and
>>>> acceptable solution.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> One solution that I recall, HPA once suggested, is:
>>>  Write registers in a reverse order from user_regs_struct, for SETREGS
>>> 
>>> Assuming these for clarification, first:
>>>  * old and new index != 0
>>>  * taking GS as an example though, should be the same with FS
>>> 
>>> Then, interesting cases would be something like these, without FSGSBASE:
>>>  Case (a), when index only changed to (new index):
>>>      (Then, the result after SETREGS would be)
>>>      GS = (new index), GSBASE = the base fetched from (new index)
>>>  Case (b), when base only changed to (new base):
>>>  Case (c), when both are changed:
>>>      GS = 0, GSBASE = (new base)
>>> 
>>> Now, with FSGSBASE:
>>>  Case (a):
>>>      GS = (new index), GSBASE = (old base)
>>>  Case (b):
>>>      GS = (old index), GSBASE = (new base)
>>>  Case (c):
>>>      GS = (new index), GSBASE = (new base)
>>> 
>>> As a reference, today's kernel behavior, without FSGSBASE:
>>>  Case (a):
>>>      GS = (new index), GSBASE = the base fetched from (new index)
>>>  Case (b):
>>>      GS = (old index), GSBASE = (old base)
>>>  Case (c):
>>>      GS = (new index), GSBASE = the base fetched from (new index)
>>> 
>>> Now, with that reverse ordering and taking that "GSBASE is important" [1],
>>> it looks like to be working in terms of its base value:
>>>  Case (b) and (c) will behave the same as with FSGSBASE
>>>  Case (a) still differs between w/ and w/o FSGSBASE.
>>>      Well, I'd say this bit comes from the 'new model' vs. the 'leagcy
>>>      model'. So, then okay with that. Any thoughts?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> This seems more complicated than needed.  How about we just remove all the magic and make putreg on the base registers never change the selector.
>> 
> 
> Hmm, just wonder what's benefit in terms of making a non-FSGSBASE system
> behave  more similar to one with FSGSBASE (although I would buy that removal).

Simplicity. The current behavior is IMO nuts.

> Well, if we're okay with such divergence, maybe that's it.
> 
>> As far as I can tell, the only downside is that, on a non-FSGSBASE kernel, setting only the base if the selector already has a nonzero value won’t work, but I would be quite surprised if this breaks anything.
> 
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists