linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/traps: Demand-populate PASID MSR via #GP

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:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:03:07 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "Jiang, Dave" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/traps: Demand-populate PASID MSR via #GP

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 09:26:10PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> > +static bool fixup_pasid_exception(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > +	if (!cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_ENQCMD))
> >> > +		return false;
> >> > +
> >> > +	return __fixup_pasid_exception();
> >> > +}
> >
> > That is, shouldn't the above at the very least decode the instruction
> > causing the #GP and check it's this ENQCMD thing?
> 
> It can't reliably do that because some other thread in the process may
> have re-written the memory that regs->ip points at (bizarre case, but
> I think Dave Hansen brought it up).

I don't buy that argument, any cross modifying code gets to keep the
pieces in that case.

> So it would just add extra code, and still only be a hint.
> 
> Without the check this sequence is possible:
> 
> 1) Process binds an accelerator (so mm->pasid is set)
> 2) Task in the process executes something other than ENQCMD that gets a #GP
> 3) Kernel says "Oh, mm->pasid is set, I'll initialize the IA32_PASID MSR to see if that fixes it"
> 4) Nope. Re-executing the instruction at step #2 just gives another #GP
> 5) Kernel says "I already set IA32_PASID, so this must be something else ... do regular #GP actions"
> 
> Now if the task catches the signal that results from step #5 and avoids termination, it will have
> IA32_PASID set ... but to the right value should it go on to actually execute ENQCMD at some
> future point.
> 
> So the corner case from not knowing whether this #GP was from ENQCMD or not is harmless.

And all that *really* should be a in a comment near there, because I'm
100% sure I'll get confused and wonder about that very same thing the
next time I see that code.