linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 01/50] x86/entry: Add fence for kernel entry swapgs in paranoid

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: <dc3abbdc-fcae-171f-7283-46977af086de@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Nov 2021 01:27:13 +0800
From:   Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "Chang S . Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 01/50] x86/entry: Add fence for kernel entry swapgs in
 paranoid_entry()



On 2021/11/18 23:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> 
> I'm confused, shouldn't the LFENCE be between SWAPGS and future uses of
> GS prefix?

I'm wrong a again.

I once thought "it should be followed with serializing operations such
as SWITCH_TO_KERNEL_CR3", and tglx corrected me:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/875yumbgox.ffs@tglx/

 > It does not matter whether the *serializing* is before or after

And in my brain, it was incorrectly stored as:
    It does not matter whether the *fence* is before or after.

I will update patch1 and the corresponding C code in later patches.

Patch 1 in V4 is correct, but not as good as Borislav Petkov pointed out
that it has duplicated FENCE_SWAPGS_KERNEL_ENTRY.

I will change it as

	rdmsr
	if (need_swapgs) {
		swapgs
		set ebx/return value
	}
	FENCE_SWAPGS_KERNEL_ENTRY

> 
> In the old code, before 96b2371413e8f, we had:
> 
> 	swapgs
> 	SAVE_AND_SWITCH_TO_KERNEL_CR3
> 	FENCE_SWAPGS_KERNEL_ENTRY
> 
> 	// %gs user comes here..
> 
> And the comment made sense, since if SAVE_AND_SWITCH_TO_KERNEL_CR3 would
> imply an unconditional CR3 write, the LFENCE would not be needed.
> 
> Then along gomes 96b2371413e8f and changes the order to:
> 
> 	SAVE_AND_SWITCH_TO_KERNEL_CR3
> 	swapgs
> 	FENCE_SWAPGS_KERNEL_ENTRY
> 	// %gs user comes here..
> 
> But now the comment is crazy talk, because even if the CR3 write were
> unconditional, it'd be pointless, since it's not after SWAPGS, but we
> still have the LFENCE in the right place.

I think the comments also make sense.

If CR3 write were unconditional before swapgs, no fence is needed after
swapgs since cr3 write is serializing.

> 
> But now you want to make it:
> 
> 	SAVE_AND_SWITCH_TO_KERNEL_CR3
> 	FENCE_SWAPGS_KERNEL_ENTRY
> 	swapgs
> 	// %gs user comes here..
> 
> And there's nothing left and speculation can use the old %gs for our
> user and things go sideways. Hmm?
> 
> 
> (on a completely unrelated note, I find KERNEL_ENTRY and USER_ENTRY
> utterly confusing)
>