linux-kernel - Re: [RFCv2 00/10] Linear Address Masking enabling

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]

Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 17:46:15 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 00/10] Linear Address Masking enabling

On 5/12/22 17:08, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I am expecting applications to ask for LAM_U48 or LAM_U57, not just
> LAM.

If AMD comes along with UAI that doesn't match LAM_U48 or LAM_U57, apps
will specifically be coded to ask for one of the three?  That seems like
an awfully rigid ABI.

That also seems like a surefire way to have non-portable users of this
feature.  It basically guarantees that userspace code will look like this:

	if (support_lam_57()) {
		sys_enable_masking(LAM_57);
		mask = LAM_57_MASK;
	} else if (support_lam_48()) {
		sys_enable_masking(LAM_48);
		mask = LAM_48_MASK;
	} else if (...)
		... others

Which is *ENTIRELY* non-portable and needs to get patched if anything
changes in the slightest.  Where, if we move that logic into the kernel,
it's something more like:

	mask = sys_enable_masking(...);
	if (bitmap_weight(&mask) < MINIMUM_BITS)
		goto whoops;

That actually works for all underlying implementations and doesn't
hard-code any assumptions about the implementation other than a basic
sanity check.

There are three choices we'd have to make for a more generic ABI that I
can think of:

ABI Question #1:

Should userspace be asking the kernel for a specific type of masking,
like a number of bits to mask or a mask itself?  If not, the enabling
syscall is dirt simple: it's "mask = sys_enable_masking()".  The kernel
picks what it wants to mask unilaterally and just tells userspace.

ABI Question #2:

Assuming that userspace is asking for a specific kind of address
masking: Should that request be made in terms of an actual mask or a
number of bits?  For instance, if userspace asks for 0xf000000000000000,
it would fit UAI or ARM TBI.  If it asks for 0x7e00000000000000, it
would match LAM_U57 behavior.

Or, does userspace ask for "8 bits", or "6 bits" or "15 bits"?

ABI Question #3:

If userspace asks for something that the kernel can't satisfy exactly,
like "8 bits" on a LAM system, is it OK for the kernel to fall back to
the next-largest mask?  For instance sys_enable_masking(bits=8), could
the kernel unilaterally return a LAM_U48 mask because LAM_U48 means
supports 15>8 bits?  Or, could this "fuzzy" behavior be an opt-in?

If I had to take a shot at this today, I think I'd opt for:

	mask = sys_enable_masking(bits=6, flags=FUZZY_NR_BITS);

although I'm not super confident about the "fuzzy" flag.  I also don't
think I'd totally hate the "blind" interface where the kernel just gets
to pick unilaterally and takes zero input from userspace.