linux-kernel - Re: [RFC please help] membarrier: Rewrite sync_core_before

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:   Sun, 27 Dec 2020 13:36:13 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC please help] membarrier: Rewrite sync_core_before_usermode()

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 12:18 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
<mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>
> ----- On Dec 27, 2020, at 1:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski luto@...nel.org wrote:
>

> >
> > I admit that I'm rather surprised that the code worked at all on arm64,
> > and I'm suspicious that it has never been very well tested.  My apologies
> > for not reviewing this more carefully in the first place.
>
> Please refer to Documentation/features/sched/membarrier-sync-core/arch-support.txt
>
> It clearly states that only arm, arm64, powerpc and x86 support the membarrier
> sync core feature as of now:

Sigh, I missed arm (32).  Russell or ARM folks, what's the right
incantation to make the CPU notice instruction changes initiated by
other cores on 32-bit ARM?

>
>
> # Architecture requirements
> #
> # * arm/arm64/powerpc
> #
> # Rely on implicit context synchronization as a result of exception return
> # when returning from IPI handler, and when returning to user-space.
> #
> # * x86
> #
> # x86-32 uses IRET as return from interrupt, which takes care of the IPI.
> # However, it uses both IRET and SYSEXIT to go back to user-space. The IRET
> # instruction is core serializing, but not SYSEXIT.
> #
> # x86-64 uses IRET as return from interrupt, which takes care of the IPI.
> # However, it can return to user-space through either SYSRETL (compat code),
> # SYSRETQ, or IRET.
> #
> # Given that neither SYSRET{L,Q}, nor SYSEXIT, are core serializing, we rely
> # instead on write_cr3() performed by switch_mm() to provide core serialization
> # after changing the current mm, and deal with the special case of kthread ->
> # uthread (temporarily keeping current mm into active_mm) by issuing a
> # sync_core_before_usermode() in that specific case.
>

I need to update that document as part of my series.

> This is based on direct feedback from the architecture maintainers.
>
> You seem to have noticed odd cases on arm64 where this guarantee does not
> match reality. Where exactly can we find this in the code, and which part
> of the architecture manual can you point us to which supports your concern ?
>
> Based on the notes I have, use of `eret` on aarch64 guarantees a context synchronizing
> instruction when returning to user-space.

Based on my reading of the manual, ERET on ARM doesn't synchronize
anything at all.  I can't find any evidence that it synchronizes data
or instructions, and I've seen reports that the CPU will happily
speculate right past it.

--Andy