linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 09/17] x86/split_lock: Handle #AC exception for split lock

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, 16 Oct 2019 10:42:00 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 09/17] x86/split_lock: Handle #AC exception for split
 lock

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 09:23:37AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 05:43:53PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 16/10/19 17:41, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 04:08:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >> SIGBUS (actually a new KVM_EXIT_INTERNAL_ERROR result from KVM_RUN is
> > >> better, but that's the idea) is for when you're debugging guests.
> > >> Global disable (or alternatively, disable SMT) is for production use.
> > > 
> > > Alternatively, for guests without split-lock #AC enabled, what if KVM were
> > > to emulate the faulting instruction with split-lock detection temporarily
> > > disabled?
> > 
> > Yes we can get fancy, but remember that KVM is not yet supporting
> > emulation of locked instructions.  Adding it is possible but shouldn't
> > be in the critical path for the whole feature.
> 
> Ah, didn't realize that.  I'm surprised emulating all locks with cmpxchg
> doesn't cause problems (or am I misreading the code?).  Assuming I'm
> reading the code correctly, the #AC path could kick all other vCPUS on
> emulation failure and then retry emulation to "guarantee" success.  Though
> that's starting to build quite the house of cards.

Ugh, doesn't the existing emulation behavior create another KVM issue?
KVM uses a locked cmpxchg in emulator_cmpxchg_emulated() and the address
is guest controlled, e.g. a guest could coerce the host into disabling
split-lock detection via the host's #AC handler by triggering emulation
and inducing an #AC in the emulator.

> > How would you disable split-lock detection temporarily?  Just tweak
> > MSR_TEST_CTRL for the time of running the one instruction, and cross
> > fingers that the sibling doesn't notice?
> 
> Tweak MSR_TEST_CTRL, with logic to handle the scenario where split-lock
> detection is globally disable during emulation (so KVM doesn't
> inadvertantly re-enable it).
> 
> There isn't much for the sibling to notice.  The kernel would temporarily
> allow split-locks on the sibling, but that's a performance issue and isn't
> directly fatal.  A missed #AC in the host kernel would only delay the
> inevitable global disabling of split-lock.  A missed #AC in userspace would
> again just delay the inevitable SIGBUS.