linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: work around clang IAS bug referencing __force

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:   Sat, 22 Aug 2020 21:16:52 -0400
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: work around clang IAS bug referencing __force_order

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 05:10:21PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 4:11 PM Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, is a memory clobber required for correctness? Memory accesses
> > probably shouldn't be reordered across a CRn write. Is asm volatile
> > enough to stop that or do you need a memory clobber?
> 
> You do need a memory clobber if you really care about ordering wrt
> normal memory references.
> 
> That said, I'm not convinced we do care here. Normal memory accesses
> (as seen by the compiler) should be entirely immune to any changes we
> do wrt CRx registers.
> 
> Because code that really fundamentally changes kernel mappings or
> access rules is already written in low-level assembler (eg the entry
> routines or bootup).
> 
> Anything that relies on the more subtle changes (ie user space
> accesses etc) should already be ordered by other things - usually by
> the fact that they are also "asm volatile".
> 
> But hey, maybe somebody can come up with an exception to that.
> 
>                 Linus

I'm sure in practice it can't happen, as any memory accesses happening
immediately around write_cr3() are probably mapped the same in both
pagetables anyway, but eg cleanup_trampoline() in
arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.c:

	memcpy(pgtable, trampoline_pgtable, PAGE_SIZE);
	native_write_cr3((unsigned long)pgtable);

There'll probably be trouble if the compiler were to reverse the order
here.

We could actually make write_crn() use memory clobber, and read_crn()
use "m"(*(int *)0x1000) as an input operand. A bit hacky, but no global
variable needed. And maybe read_crn() doesn't even have to be volatile.

Also, if we look at the rdmsr/wrmsr pair, there's no force_order
equivalent AFAICT. wrmsr has a memory clobber, but the asm volatile-ness
is the only thing enforcing read/write ordering.