linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel parameter

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20191121171214.GD12042@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Nov 2019 18:12:14 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/6] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by
 kernel parameter


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 07:04:44AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > > +	split_lock_detect
> > > +			[X86] Enable split lock detection
> > > +			This is a real time or debugging feature. When enabled
> > > +			(and if hardware support is present), atomic
> > > +			instructions that access data across cache line
> > > +			boundaries will result in an alignment check exception.
> > > +			When triggered in applications the kernel will send
> > > +			SIGBUS. The kernel will panic for a split lock in
> > > +			OS code.
> > 
> > It would be really nice to be able to enable/disable this runtime as 
> > well, has this been raised before, and what was the conclusion?
> 
> It has, previous versions had that. Somehow a lot of things went missing
> and we're back to a broken neutered useless mess.
> 
> The problem appears to be that due to hardware design the feature cannot
> be virtualized, and instead of then disabling it when a VM runs/exists
> they just threw in the towel and went back to useless mode.. :-(
> 
> This feature MUST be default enabled, otherwise everything will
> be/remain broken and we'll end up in the situation where you can't use
> it even if you wanted to.

Agreed.

> And I can't be arsed to look it up, but we've been making this very 
> same argument since very early (possible the very first) version.

Yeah, I now have a distinct deja vu...

Thanks,

	Ingo