linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86/mmu: Add mm-based PASID refcounting

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: <fe65a413-44c0-46c3-856f-ed4e554066f6@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Sep 2021 10:46:58 -0700
From:   "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Fenghua Yu" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Lu Baolu" <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Joerg Roedel" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "Dave Jiang" <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "Jacob Jun Pan" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Raj Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86/mmu: Add mm-based PASID refcounting



On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, at 10:41 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 07:15:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 29 2021 at 09:59, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On 9/29/21 05:28, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >> Looking at that patch again, none of this muck in fpu__pasid_write() is
>> >> required at all. The whole exception fixup is:
>> >> 
>> >>      if (!user_mode(regs))
>> >>               return false;
>> >> 
>> >>      if (!current->mm->pasid)
>> >>               return false;
>> >> 
>> >>      if (current->pasid_activated)
>> >>      	     return false;
>> >
>> > <-- preemption or BH here: kaboom.
>> 
>> Sigh, this had obviously to run in the early portion of #GP, i.e. before
>> enabling interrupts.
>
> Like this? Obviously with some comment about why this is being done.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> index a58800973aed..a848a59291e7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -536,6 +536,12 @@ DEFINE_IDTENTRY_ERRORCODE(exc_general_protection)
>  	unsigned long gp_addr;
>  	int ret;
> 
> +	if (user_mode(regs) && current->mm->pasid && !current->pasid_activated) {
> +		current->pasid_activated = 1;
> +		wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PASID, current->mm->pasid | MSR_IA32_PASID_VALID);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +

This could do with a WARN_ON_ONCE(TIF_NEED_LOAD_FPU) imo.

Is instrumentation allowed to touch FPU state?

>  	cond_local_irq_enable(regs);
> 
>  	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_UMIP)) {
>
> -Tony