linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V2 17/17] x86/entry: Preserve PKRS MSR across exceptions

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: <20200717100610.GH10769@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:06:10 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     ira.weiny@...el.com
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 17/17] x86/entry: Preserve PKRS MSR across
 exceptions

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:20:56AM -0700, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> First I'm not sure if adding this state to idtentry_state and having
> that state copied is the right way to go.  It seems like we should start
> passing this by reference instead of value.  But for now this works as
> an RFC.  Comments?

As long as you keep sizeof(struct idtentry_state_t) <= sizeof(u64) or
possibly 2*sizeof(unsigned long), code gen shouldn't be too horrid IIRC.
You'll have to look at what the compiler makes of it.

> Second, I'm not 100% happy with having to save the reference count in
> the exception handler.  It seems like a very ugly layering violation but
> I don't see a way around it at the moment.

So I've been struggling with that API, all the way from
pks_update_protection() to that dev_access_{en,dis}able(). I _really_
hate it, but I see how you ended up with it.

I wanted to propose something like:

u32 current_pkey_save(int pkey, unsigned flags)
{
	u32 *lpkr = get_cpu_ptr(&local_pkr);
	u32 pkr, saved = *lpkr;

	pkr = update_pkey_reg(saved, pkey, flags);
	if (pkr != saved)
		wrpkr(pkr);

	put_cpu_ptr(&local_pkr);
	return saved;
}

void current_pkey_restore(u32 pkr)
{
	u32 *lpkr = get_cpu_ptr(&local_pkr);
	if (*lpkr != pkr)
		wrpkr(pkr);
	put_cpu_ptr(&local_pkr);
}

Together with:

void pkey_switch(struct task_struct *prev, struct task_struct *next)
{
	prev->pkr = this_cpu_read(local_pkr);
	if (prev->pkr != next->pkr)
		wrpkr(next->pkr);
}

But that's actually hard to frob into the kmap() model :-( The upside is
that you only have 1 word of state, instead of the 2 you have now.

> Third, this patch has gone through a couple of revisions as I've had
> crashes which just don't make sense to me.  One particular issue I've
> had is taking a MCE during memcpy_mcsafe causing my WARN_ON() to fire.
> The code path was a pmem copy and the ref count should have been
> elevated due to dev_access_enable() but why was
> idtentry_enter()->idt_save_pkrs() not called I don't know.

Because MCEs are NMI-like and don't go through the normal interrupt
path. MCEs are an abomination, please wear all the protective devices
you can lay hands on when delving into that.