linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/memcpy: Introduce memcpy_mcsafe

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <67FF611B-D10E-4BAF-92EE-684C83C9107E@amacapital.net>
Date:   Sat, 18 Apr 2020 13:30:05 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Erwin Tsaur <erwin.tsaur@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/memcpy: Introduce memcpy_mcsafe_fast



--Andy

> On Apr 18, 2020, at 12:42 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 5:12 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> @@ -106,12 +108,10 @@ static __always_inline __must_check unsigned long
>>> memcpy_mcsafe(void *dst, const void *src, size_t cnt)
>>> {
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE
>>> -       i(static_branch_unlikely(&mcsafe_key))
>>> -               return __memcpy_mcsafe(dst, src, cnt);
>>> -       else
>>> +       if (static_branch_unlikely(&mcsafe_slow_key))
>>> +               return memcpy_mcsafe_slow(dst, src, cnt);
>>> #endif
>>> -               memcpy(dst, src, cnt);
>>> -       return 0;
>>> +       return memcpy_mcsafe_fast(dst, src, cnt);
>>> }
> 
> It strikes me that I see no advantages to making this an inline function at all.
> 
> Even for the good case - where it turns into just a memcpy because MCE
> is entirely disabled - it doesn't seem to matter.
> 
> The only case that really helps is when the memcpy can be turned into
> a single access. Which - and I checked - does exist, with people doing
> 
>        r = memcpy_mcsafe(&sb_seq_count, &sb(wc)->seq_count, sizeof(uint64_t));
> 
> to read a single 64-bit field which looks aligned to me.
> 
> But that code is incredible garbage anyway, since even on a broken
> machine, there's no actual reason to use the slow variant for that
> whole access that I can tell. The macs-safe copy routines do not do
> anything worthwhile for a single access.

Maybe I’m missing something obvious, but what’s the alternative?  The _mcsafe variants don’t just avoid the REP mess — they also tell the kernel that this particular access is recoverable via extable. With a regular memory access, the CPU may not explode, but do_machine_check() will, at very best, OOPS, and even that requires a certain degree of optimism.  A panic is more likely.