linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] x86/sgx: Add poison handling to reclaimer

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: <YeySy2lGjEbNbK1G@iki.fi>
Date:   Sun, 23 Jan 2022 01:27:07 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc:     tony.luck@...el.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, luto@...nel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] x86/sgx: Add poison handling to reclaimer

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 10:20:01AM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
> 
> On 1/20/2022 5:09 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-01-19 at 14:23 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> >> The SGX reclaimer code lacks page poison handling in its main
> >> free path. This can lead to avoidable machine checks if a
> >> poisoned page is freed and reallocated instead of being
> >> isolated.
> >>
> >> A troublesome scenario is:
> >>  1. Machine check (#MC) occurs (asynchronous, !MF_ACTION_REQUIRED)
> >>  2. arch_memory_failure() is eventually called
> >>  3. (SGX) page->poison set to 1
> >>  4. Page is reclaimed
> >>  5. Page added to normal free lists by sgx_reclaim_pages()
> >>     ^ This is the bug (poison pages should be isolated on the
> >>     sgx_poison_page_list instead)
> >>  6. Page is reallocated by some innocent enclave, a second
> >> (synchronous)
> >>     in-kernel #MC is induced, probably during EADD instruction.
> >>     ^ This is the fallout from the bug
> >>
> >> (6) is unfortunate and can be avoided by replacing the open coded
> >> enclave page freeing code in the reclaimer with sgx_free_epc_page()
> >> to obtain support for poison page handling that includes placing the
> >> poisoned page on the correct list.
> >>
> >> Fixes: d6d261bded8a ("x86/sgx: Add new sgx_epc_page flag bit to mark
> >> free pages")
> >> Fixes: 992801ae9243 ("x86/sgx: Initial poison handling for dirty and
> >> free pages")
> > 
> > Same comment as for the first version: remove the first fixes tag.
> > 
> 
> For completeness I'll duplicate my response also:
> 
> The commit you refer to, commit d6d261bded8a ("x86/sgx: Add new
> sgx_epc_page flag bit to mark free pages", introduced a new page flag bit
> (SGX_EPC_PAGE_IS_FREE) that should be set when an EPC page is freed. The
> commit also sets the bit in sgx_free_epc_page() when an EPC page is freed.
> The commit should also have set that bit when the EPC page is freed in the
> reclaimer, which contains an open coded version of sgx_free_epc_page(),
> but it did not. This fix adds the snippet that was omitted from that
> commit.
> 
> Reinette

Let me check. Yes, I can see it in lore, but somehow it has slipped out
of my inbox. My apologies.

The change would make sense even as a clean up (no reason to have open
coded of sgx_free_epc_page(), let alone this regression:

Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>

BR, Jarkko