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  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:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:14:10 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 V3 4/9] x86/pks: Preserve the PKRS MSR on context
 switch

On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:12:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:31:45AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * It should also be noted that the underlying WRMSR(MSR_IA32_PKRS) is not
> > > + * serializing but still maintains ordering properties similar to WRPKRU.
> > > + * The current SDM section on PKRS needs updating but should be the same as
> > > + * that of WRPKRU.  So to quote from the WRPKRU text:
> > > + *
> > > + * 	WRPKRU will never execute transiently. Memory accesses
> > > + * 	affected by PKRU register will not execute (even transiently)
> > > + * 	until all prior executions of WRPKRU have completed execution
> > > + * 	and updated the PKRU register.
> > > + */
> > > +void write_pkrs(u32 new_pkrs)
> > > +{
> > > +	u32 *pkrs;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PKS))
> > > +		return;
> > > +
> > > +	pkrs = get_cpu_ptr(&pkrs_cache);
> > > +	if (*pkrs != new_pkrs) {
> > > +		*pkrs = new_pkrs;
> > > +		wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PKRS, new_pkrs);
> > > +	}
> > > +	put_cpu_ptr(pkrs);
> > > +}
> > > 
> > 
> > It bugs me a *bit* that this is being called in a preempt-disabled
> > region, but we still bother with the get/put_cpu jazz.  Are there other
> > future call-sites for this that aren't in preempt-disabled regions?
> 
> So the previous version had a useful comment that got lost.

Ok Looking back I see what happened...  This comment...

 /*
  * PKRS is only temporarily changed during specific code paths.
  * Only a preemption during these windows away from the default
  * value would require updating the MSR.
  */

... was added to pks_sched_in() but that got simplified down because cleaning
up write_pkrs() made the code there obsolete.

> This stuff
> needs to fundamentally be preempt disabled,

I agree, the update to the percpu cache value and MSR can not be torn.

> so it either needs to
> explicitly do so, or have an assertion that preemption is indeed
> disabled.

However, I don't think I understand clearly.  Doesn't [get|put]_cpu_ptr()
handle the preempt_disable() for us?  Is it not sufficient to rely on that?

Dave's comment seems to be the opposite where we need to eliminate preempt
disable before calling write_pkrs().

FWIW I think I'm mistaken in my response to Dave regarding the
preempt_disable() in pks_update_protection().

Ira

Powered by blists - more mailing lists