[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1911121809020.1833@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:10:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V2 08/16] x86/ioperm: Add bitmap sequence number
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:35 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > /*
> > + * The bitmap pointer and the sequence number of the last active
> > + * bitmap. last_bitmap cannot be dereferenced. It's solely for
> > + * comparison.
> > + */
> > + struct io_bitmap *last_bitmap;
> > + u64 last_sequence;
> > +
> > + /*
> > * Store the dirty size of the last io bitmap offender. The next
> > * one will have to do the cleanup as the switch out to a non io
> > * bitmap user will just set x86_tss.io_bitmap_base to a value
>
> Why is all this stuff in the TSS? Would it make more sense in a
> percpu variable tss_state? By putting it in the TSS, you're putting
> it in cpu_entry_area, which is at least a bit odd if not an actual
> security problem.
>
> And why do you need a last_bitmap pointer? I thin that comparing just
> last_sequence should be enough. Keeping last_bitmap around at all is
> asking for trouble, since it might point to freed memory.
The bitmap pointer is pointless as I said in an earlier reply to Peter. It
will go away. The sequence number and the dirty size are surely not a
problem leakage wise, but yes, we could put it into a per cpu variable as
well. Not sure whether it buys much.
> > - memcpy(tss->io_bitmap_bytes, iobm->bitmap_bytes,
> > - max(tss->io_bitmap_prev_max, iobm->io_bitmap_max));
> > + if (tss->last_bitmap != iobm ||
> > + tss->last_sequence != iobm->sequence)
>
> As above, I think this could just be if (tss->last_sequence !=
> iobm->sequence) or even if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tss_state.iobm_sequence)
> != iobm->sequence).
Already fixed as per Peter's comments.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists