linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Break load reservations during switch

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, 19 Jun 2019 08:36:01 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc:     linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, marco@...red.org,
        me@...losedp.com, joel@...g.id.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] RISC-V: Break load reservations during switch_to

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:22:22PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> The comment describes why in detail.  This was found because QEMU never
> gives up load reservations, the issue is unlikely to manifest on real
> hardware.
> 
> Thanks to Carlos Eduardo for finding the bug!

> @@ -330,6 +330,17 @@ ENTRY(__switch_to)
>  	add   a3, a0, a4
>  	add   a4, a1, a4
>  	REG_S ra,  TASK_THREAD_RA_RA(a3)
> +	/*
> +	 * The Linux ABI allows programs to depend on load reservations being
> +	 * broken on context switches, but the ISA doesn't require that the
> +	 * hardware ever breaks a load reservation.  The only way to break a
> +	 * load reservation is with a store conditional, so we emit one here.
> +	 * Since nothing ever takes a load reservation on TASK_THREAD_RA_RA we
> +	 * know this will always fail, but just to be on the safe side this
> +	 * writes the same value that was unconditionally written by the
> +	 * previous instruction.
> +	 */

I suspect that you need to do the same as 32-bit ARM, and clear this in
your exception return path, rather than in __switch_to, since handlers
for interrupts and other exceptions could leave a dangling reservation.

For ARM, the architecture permits a store-exclusive to succeed even if
the address differed from the load-exclusive. I don't know if the same
applies here, but regardless I believe the case above applies if an IRQ
is taken from kernel context, since the handler can manipulate the same
variable as the interrupted code.

Thanks,
Mark.