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]

Date:   Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:59:48 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        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

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 08:13:48AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:30:56PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:27:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > This all looks dubious on an HT system .... three snips
> > from your patch:
> > 
> > > +static bool __sld_msr_set(bool on)
> > > +{
> > > +	u64 test_ctrl_val;
> > > +
> > > +	if (rdmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	if (on)
> > > +		test_ctrl_val |= MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
> > > +	else
> > > +		test_ctrl_val &= ~MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
> > > +
> > > +	if (wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	return true;
> > > +}
> > 
> > > +void switch_sld(struct task_struct *prev)
> > > +{
> > > +	__sld_set_msr(true);
> > > +	clear_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_CLD);
> > > +}
> > 
> > > @@ -654,6 +654,9 @@ void __switch_to_xtra(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
> > >  		/* Enforce MSR update to ensure consistent state */
> > >  		__speculation_ctrl_update(~tifn, tifn);
> > >  	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (tifp & _TIF_SLD)
> > > +		switch_sld(prev_p);
> > >  }
> > 
> > Don't you have some horrible races between the two logical
> > processors on the same core as they both try to set/clear the
> > MSR that is shared at the core level?
> 
> Yes and no.  Yes, there will be races, but they won't be fatal in any way.
> 
>   - Only the split-lock bit is supported by the kernel, so there isn't a
>     risk of corrupting other bits as both threads will rewrite the current
>     hardware value.
> 
>   - Toggling of split-lock is only done in "warn" mode.  Worst case
>     scenario of a race is that a misbehaving task will generate multiple
>     #AC exceptions on the same instruction.  And this race will only occur
>     if both siblings are running tasks that generate split-lock #ACs, e.g.
>     a race where sibling threads are writing different values will only
>     occur if CPUx is disabling split-lock after an #AC and CPUy is
>     re-enabling split-lock after *its* previous task generated an #AC.
> 
>   - Transitioning between modes at runtime isn't supported and disabling
>     is tracked per task, so hardware will always reach a steady state that
>     matches the configured mode.  I.e. split-lock is guaranteed to be
>     enabled in hardware once all _TIF_SLD threads have been scheduled out.

Just so, thanks for clarifying.