linux-kernel - Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] task_isolation: kick_all_cpus

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:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 00:21:06 +0100
From:   Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To:     Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>
Cc:     Prasun Kapoor <pkapoor@...vell.com>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "trix@...hat.com" <trix@...hat.com>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "peterx@...hat.com" <peterx@...hat.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "nitesh@...hat.com" <nitesh@...hat.com>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "leon@...ebranch.com" <leon@...ebranch.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "pauld@...hat.com" <pauld@...hat.com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] task_isolation: kick_all_cpus_sync:
 don't kick isolated cpus

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:39:34PM +0000, Alex Belits wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 23:29 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > External Email
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 05:58:42PM +0000, Alex Belits wrote:
> > > From: Yuri Norov <ynorov@...vell.com>
> > > 
> > > Make sure that kick_all_cpus_sync() does not call CPUs that are
> > > running
> > > isolated tasks.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yuri Norov <ynorov@...vell.com>
> > > [abelits@...vell.com: use safe task_isolation_cpumask()
> > > implementation]
> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Belits <abelits@...vell.com>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/smp.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> > > index 4d17501433be..b2faecf58ed0 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/smp.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> > > @@ -932,9 +932,21 @@ static void do_nothing(void *unused)
> > >   */
> > >  void kick_all_cpus_sync(void)
> > >  {
> > > +	struct cpumask mask;
> > > +
> > >  	/* Make sure the change is visible before we kick the cpus */
> > >  	smp_mb();
> > > -	smp_call_function(do_nothing, NULL, 1);
> > > +
> > > +	preempt_disable();
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_TASK_ISOLATION
> > > +	cpumask_clear(&mask);
> > > +	task_isolation_cpumask(&mask);
> > > +	cpumask_complement(&mask, &mask);
> > > +#else
> > > +	cpumask_setall(&mask);
> > > +#endif
> > > +	smp_call_function_many(&mask, do_nothing, NULL, 1);
> > > +	preempt_enable();
> > 
> > Same comment about IPIs here.
> 
> This is different from timers. The original design was based on the
> idea that every CPU should be able to enter kernel at any time and run
> kernel code with no additional preparation. Then the only solution is
> to always do full broadcast and require all CPUs to process it.
> 
> What I am trying to introduce is the idea of CPU that is not likely to
> run kernel code any soon, and can afford to go through an additional
> synchronization procedure on the next entry into kernel. The
> synchronization is not skipped, it simply happens later, early in
> kernel entry code.

Ah I see, this is ordered that way:

ll_isol_flags = ISOLATED

         CPU 0                                CPU 1
    ------------------                       -----------------
                                            // kernel entry
    data_to_sync = 1                        ll_isol_flags = ISOLATED_BROKEN
    smp_mb()                                smp_mb()
    if ll_isol_flags(CPU 1) == ISOLATED     READ data_to_sync
         smp_call(CPU 1)

You should document that, ie: explain why what you're doing is safe.

Also Beware though that the data to sync in question doesn't need to be visible
in the entry code before task_isolation_kernel_enter(). You need to audit all
the callers of kick_all_cpus_sync().