linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 03/13] task_isolation: add instruction synchronization memory barrier

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:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 08:41:02 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Prasun Kapoor <pkapoor@...vell.com>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "frederic@...nel.org" <frederic@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 03/13] task_isolation: add instruction
 synchronization memory barrier

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:55:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:36:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:23:51PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > IIUC, we don't need to do anything on arm64 because taking an exception acts
> > > as a context synchronization event, so I don't think you should try to
> > > expose this as a new barrier macro. Instead, just make it a pre-requisite
> > > that architectures need to ensure this behaviour when entering the kernel
> > > from userspace if they are to select HAVE_ARCH_TASK_ISOLATION.
> > 
> > The CSE from the exception isn't sufficient here, because it needs to
> > occur after the CPU has re-registered to receive IPIs for
> > kick_all_cpus_sync(). Otherwise there's a window between taking the
> > exception and re-registering where a necessary context synchronization
> > event can be missed. e.g.
> > 
> > CPU A				CPU B
> > [ Modifies some code ]		
> > 				[ enters exception ]
> > [ D cache maintenance ]
> > [ I cache maintenance ]
> > [ IPI ]				// IPI not taken
> >   ...				[ register for IPI ] 
> > [ IPI completes ] 
> > 				[ execute stale code here ]
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > However, I think 'IMB' is far too generic, and we should have an arch
> > hook specific to task isolation, as it's far less likely to be abused as
> > IMB will.
> 
> What guarantees we don't run any unsynchronised module code between
> exception entry and registering for the IPI? It seems like we'd want that
> code to run as early as possible, e.g. as part of
> task_isolation_user_exit() but that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

Sorry, I guess that's more a question for Alex.

Alex -- do you think we could move the "register for IPI" step earlier
so that it's easier to reason about the code that runs in the dead zone
during exception entry?

Will