linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 11/11] context_tracking,x86: Fix text_poke_sync() vs NOHZ

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: <20211021195709.GA22422@fuller.cnet>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:57:09 -0300
From:   Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     gor@...ux.ibm.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, jikos@...nel.org,
        mbenes@...e.cz, pmladek@...e.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joe.lawrence@...hat.com,
        fweisbec@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
        svens@...ux.ibm.com, sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 11/11] context_tracking,x86: Fix text_poke_sync()
 vs NOHZ_FULL

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 09:25:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 03:39:35PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Peter,
> > 
> > static __always_inline void arch_exit_to_user_mode(void)
> > {
> >         mds_user_clear_cpu_buffers();
> > }
> > 
> > /**
> >  * mds_user_clear_cpu_buffers - Mitigation for MDS and TAA vulnerability
> >  *
> >  * Clear CPU buffers if the corresponding static key is enabled
> >  */
> > static __always_inline void mds_user_clear_cpu_buffers(void)
> > {
> >         if (static_branch_likely(&mds_user_clear))
> >                 mds_clear_cpu_buffers();
> > }
> > 
> > We were discussing how to perform objtool style validation 
> > that no code after the check for 
> 
> I'm not sure what the point of the above is... Were you trying to ask
> for validation that nothing runs after the mds_user_clear_cpu_buffer()?
> 
> That isn't strictly true today, there's lockdep code after it. I can't
> recall why that order is as it is though.
> 
> Pretty much everything in noinstr is magical, we just have to think
> harder there (and possibly start writing more comments there).

mds_user_clear_cpu_buffers happens after sync_core, in your patchset, 
if i am not mistaken.

> > > +             /* NMI happens here and must still do/finish CT_WORK_n */
> > > +             sync_core();
> > 
> > But after the discussion with you, it seems doing the TLB checking 
> > and (also sync_core) checking very late/very early on exit/entry 
> > makes things easier to review.
> 
> I don't know about late, it must happen *very* early in entry. The
> sync_core() must happen before any self-modifying code gets called
> (static_branch, static_call, etc..) with possible exception of the
> context_tracking static_branch.
> 
> The TLBi must also happen super early, possibly while still on the
> entry stack (since the task stack is vmap'ed).

But will it be ever be freed/remapped from other CPUs while the task
is running?

> We currently don't run C
> code on the entry stack, that needs quite a bit of careful work to make
> happen.

Was thinking of coding in ASM after (as early as possible) the write to 
switch to kernel CR3:

 Kernel entry:
 -------------

       cpu = smp_processor_id();

       if (isolation_enabled(cpu)) {
               reqs = atomic_xchg(&percpudata->user_kernel_state, IN_KERNEL_MODE);
               if (reqs & CPU_REQ_FLUSH_TLB)
			flush_tlb_all();
               if (reqs & CPU_REQ_SYNC_CORE)
			sync_core();
       }                           

Exit to userspace (as close to write to CR3 with user pagetable
pointer):
 -----------------

       cpu = smp_processor_id();

       if (isolation_enabled(cpu)) {
               atomic_or(IN_USER_MODE, &percpudata->user_kernel_state);
       }

You think that is a bad idea (in ASM, not C) ? 
And request side can be in C:

 Request side:
 -------------

       int targetcpu;

       do {
               struct percpudata *pcpudata = per_cpu(&percpudata, targetcpu);

               old_state = pcpudata->user_kernel_state;

               /* in kernel mode ? */
               if (!(old_state & IN_USER_MODE)) {
                       smp_call_function_single(request_fn, targetcpu, 1);
                       break;
               }                                                                                                                         
               new_state = remote_state | CPU_REQ_FLUSH_TLB; // (or CPU_REQ_INV_ICACHE)
       } while (atomic_cmpxchg(&pcpudata->user_kernel_state, old_state, new_state) != old_state);   

(need logic to protect from atomic_cmpxchg always failing, but shouldnt
be difficult).

> > Can then use a single atomic variable with USER/KERNEL state and cmpxchg
> > loops.
> 
> We're not going to add an atomic to context tracking. There is one, we
> just got to extract/share it with RCU.

Again, to avoid kernel TLB flushes you'd have to ensure:

kernel entry:
	instrA addr1,addr2,addr3
	instrB addr2,addr3,addr4  <--- that no address here has TLBs
				       modified and flushed
	instrC addr5,addr6,addr7
        reqs = atomic_xchg(&percpudata->user_kernel_state, IN_KERNEL_MODE);
        if (reqs & CPU_REQ_FLUSH_TLB)
        	flush_tlb_all();

kernel exit:

        atomic_or(IN_USER_MODE, &percpudata->user_kernel_state);
	instrA addr1,addr2,addr3
	instrB addr2,addr3,addr4  <--- that no address here has TLBs
				       modified and flushed

This could be conditional on "task isolated mode" enabled (would be 
better if it didnt, though).