linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v7 17/23] kernel/entry: Add support for core-wide protection of kernel-mode

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: <CAEXW_YS-ozG2RnyUJ=OLi5cKJMDXRG+m5kY97d5rd-ubCfSD5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 16:25:05 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To:     Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Vineeth Pillai <viremana@...ux.microsoft.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
        Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...cle.com>,
        Chris Hyser <chris.hyser@...cle.com>,
        Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Greg Kerr <kerrnel@...gle.com>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, vineeth@...byteword.org,
        Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Agata Gruza <agata.gruza@...el.com>,
        Antonio Gomez Iglesias <antonio.gomez.iglesias@...el.com>,
        graf@...zon.com, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <derkling@...gle.com>,
        benbjiang(蒋彪) <benbjiang@...cent.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 17/23] kernel/entry: Add support for core-wide
 protection of kernel-mode

On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:43 AM Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2020-09-03 at 00:34 -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 12:57 PM Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 2) protection of the kernel from the other thread running in
> > > userspace
> > > may be achieved in different ways. This is one, sure. ASI will
> > > probably
> > > be another. Hence if/when we'll have both, this and ASI, it would
> > > be
> > > cool to be able to configure the system in such a way that there is
> > > only one active, to avoid paying the price of both! :-)
> >
> > Actually, no. Part of ASI will involve exactly what this patch does -
> > IPI-pausing siblings but ASI does so when they have no choice but to
> > switch away from the "limited kernel" mapping, into the full host
> > kernel mapping. I am not sure if they have yet implemented that part
> > but they do talk of it in [1] and in their pretty LPC slides.  It is
> > just that ASI tries to avoid that scenario of kicking all siblings
> > out
> > of guest mode.  So, maybe this patch can be a stepping stone to ASI.
> >
> Ah, sure! I mean, it of course depends on how things get mixed
> together, which we still don't know. :-)
>
> I know that ASI wants to do this very same thing some times. I just
> wanted to say that we need/want only one mechanism for doing that, in
> place at any given time.
>
> If that mechanism will be this one, and ASI then uses it (e.g., in a
> scenario where for whatever reason one wants ASI with the kicking but
> not Core Scheduling), then great, I agree, and everything does makes
> sense.

Agreed, with some minor modifications, it should be possible.

> > Why do you feel that ASI on its own offers some magical protection
> > that eliminates the need for this patch?
> >
> I don't. I was just trying to think of different use cases, how they
> mix and match, etc. But as you're suggesting (and as Thomas has shown
> very clearly in another reply to this email), the thing that makes the
> most sense is to have one mechanism for the kicking, used by anyone
> that needs it. :-)

Makes sense. Thanks,

 - Joel