linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 12/12] x86/traps: Fix up invalid PASID

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 18:28:37 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Jacob Jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, iommu <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        amd-gfx <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 12/12] x86/traps: Fix up invalid PASID

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 4:48 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> A #GP fault is generated when ENQCMD instruction is executed without
> a valid PASID value programmed in the current thread's PASID MSR. The
> #GP fault handler will initialize the MSR if a PASID has been allocated
> for this process.

Let's take a step back here.  Why are we trying to avoid IPIs?  If you
call munmap(), you IPI other CPUs running tasks in the current mm.  If
you do perf_event_open() and thus acquire RDPMC permission, you IPI
other CPUs running tasks in the current mm.  If you call modify_ldt(),
you IPI other CPUs running tasks in the current mm.  These events can
all happen more than once per process.

Now we have ENQCMD.  An mm can be assigned a PASID *once* in the model
that these patches support.  Why not just send an IPI using
essentially identical code to the LDT sync or the CR4.PCE sync?

--Andy