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: <87wo1buhcs.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Thu, 03 Sep 2020 15:20:35 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Dario Faggioli <dfaggioli@...e.com>
Cc:     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 03 2020 at 00:34, 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.
> At least I got the entry hooks right, and the algorithm is efficient
> IMO (useless IPIs are avoided).  ASI can then come in and avoid
> sending IPIs even more by doing their limited-kernel-mapping things if
> needed. So, it does not need to be this vs ASI, both may be needed.

Right. There are different parts which are seperate:

1) Core scheduling as a best effort feature (performance for certain use
   cases)

2) Enforced core scheduling (utilizes #1 basics)

3) ASI

4) Kick sibling out of guest/host and wait mechanics

#1, #2, #3 can be used stand alone. #4 is a utility

Then you get combos:

A) #2 + #4:

   core wide protection. i.e. what this series tries to achieve.  #3
   triggers the kick at the low level VMEXIT or entry from user mode
   boundary. The wait happens at the same level

B) #3 + #4:

   ASI plus kicking the sibling/wait mechanics independent of what's
   scheduled. #3 triggers the kick at the ASI switch to full host
   mapping boundary and the wait is probably the same as in #A

C) #2 + #3 + #4:

   The full concert, but trigger/wait wise the same as #B

So we really want to make at least #4 an independent utility.

Thanks,

        tglx