linux-kernel - Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)

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]

Message-ID: <20200623155204.GO4817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 17:52:04 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        Mike Stunes <mstunes@...are.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Juergen Gross <JGross@...e.com>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>,
        Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP
 from userspace)

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:39:26PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 23/06/2020 16:23, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 04:59:14PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:

> >> Yes, this is a start, it doesn't cover the case where the NMI stack is
> >> in-between, so I think you need to walk down regs->sp too.
> > That shouldn't be possible with the current code, I think.
> 
> NMI; #MC; Anything which IRET but isn't fatal - #DB, or #BP from
> patching, #GP from *_safe(), etc; NMI
> 
> Sure its a corner case, but did you hear that IST is evil?

Isn't current #MC unconditionally fatal from kernel? But yes, I was
sorta aware people want that changed.

And yes, NMI can recurse, mostly on #BP and #PF. Like I wrote, its
broken vs #MC.

But Joerg was talking about IST recursion with NMI in the middle,
something like: #DB, NMI, #DB, and not already being fatal. This one in
particular is ruled out by #DB itself clearing DR7 (but NMI would also
do that).

> P.S. did you also hear that with Rowhammer, userspace has a nonzero
> quantity of control over generating #MC, depending on how ECC is
> configured on the platform.

Yes, excellent stuff.