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: <20200623111107.GG31822@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:11:07 +0200
From:   Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP
 from userspace)

Hi Peter,

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:45:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > Or maybe you have a better idea how to implement this, so I'd like to
> > hear your opinion first before I spend too many days implementing
> > something.
> 
> OK, excuse my ignorance, but I'm not seeing how that IST shifting
> nonsense would've helped in the first place.
> 
> If I understand correctly the problem is:
> 
> 	<#VC>
> 	  shift IST
> 	  <NMI>
> 	    ... does stuff
> 	    <#VC> # again, safe because the shift
> 
> But what happens if you get the NMI before your IST adjustment?

The v3 patchset implements an unconditional shift of the #VC IST entry
in the NMI handler, before it can trigger a #VC exception.

> Either way around we get to fix this up in NMI (and any other IST
> exception that can happen while in #VC, hello #MC). And more complexity
> there is the very last thing we need :-(

Yes, in whatever way this gets implemented, it needs some fixup in the
NMI handler. But that can happen in C code, so it does not make the
assembly more complex, at least.

> There's no way you can fix up the IDT without getting an NMI first.

Not sure what you mean by this.

> This entire exception model is fundamentally buggered :-/

Regards,

	Joerg