linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC V3 4/9] x86/pks: Preserve the PKRS MSR on context switch

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: <20201019093714.GI2628@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 19 Oct 2020 11:37:14 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
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 10:14:10PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > 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? 

It does.

> Is it not sufficient to rely on that?

It is.

> 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().

Dave's concern is that we're calling with with preemption already
disabled so disabling it again is superfluous.