linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Add workaround for SKX/CLX/CPX spurious machine checks

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: <CAPcxDJ4=iknzYbN=b2oQxvJyODkQ_MWEj1wkKEuGwf4HQ3aPZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 07:50:24 -0800
From:   Jue Wang <juew@...gle.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mce: Add workaround for SKX/CLX/CPX spurious machine checks

On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 2:28 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 02:22:33PM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > This early in do_machine check we don't know whether this was from
> > a over enthusistic REP;MOVS fetch, or a "normal" machine check.
> > I don't think there is an easy way to tell the difference.
>
> That's what I am wondering: whether we can compare the buffers REP;
> MOVS was accessing and determine whether the access was out of bounds.
> Something ala _ASM_EXTABLE_ as it is done in arch/x86/lib/copy_mc_64.S,
> for example, which will land us in fixup_exception().
>
> Now there we'd need to know the range the thing was copying which should
> be in pt_regs and the address the MCE reported. If latter is not in the
> former range, we say ignore.

This is a great idea.

My slight reservation is that this suggests all use cases of "REP; MOVS*" must
take the _ASM_EXTABLE_ form, which is not possible; considering
"REP; MOVS*" can be exercised from any user space program.

>
> There's even some blurb about "recovering from fast-string exceptions"
> over copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string...
>
> Hmmm?
If there is a way to get all users of "REP; MOVS*" to use
copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string, this could work. I am not sure this is possible.

>
> > The first check:
> >
> >       if ((mcgstatus & MCG_STATUS_LMCES)
> >
> > is for "is this a local machine check"? So no broadcast sync
> > needed. But that needs a comment.
>
> Yap.
Updated in the latest patch sent.
>
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
>
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette