| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 18:38:40 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
"ryabinin.a.a@...il.com" <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
"andreyknvl@...il.com" <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
"glider@...gle.com" <glider@...gle.com>,
"dvyukov@...gle.com" <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 6/8] x86/mm: Provide ARCH_GET_UNTAG_MASK and
ARCH_ENABLE_TAGGED_ADDR
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:29:13PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2022, at 5:53 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 04:42:40PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On 6/10/22 07:35, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>
> >> > + /* Update CR3 to get LAM active */
> >> > + switch_mm(current->mm, current->mm, current);
> >>
> >> Can you at least justify this oddity? When changing an LDT, we use a
> >> dedicated mechanism. Is there a significant benefit to abusing switch_mm
> >> for this?
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow. LAM mode is set in CR3. switch_mm() has to handle
> > it anyway to context switch. Why do you consider it abuse?
> >
> >>
> >> Also, why can't we enable LAM on a multithreaded process? We can change an
> >> LDT, and the code isn't even particularly complicated.
> >
> > I reworked this in v4[1] and it allows multithreaded processes. Have you
> > got that version?
> >
> > Intel had issue with mail server, but I assumed it didn't affect my
> > patchset since I see it in the archive.
> >
>
> I didn’t notice it. Not quite sure what the issue was. Could just be
> incompetence on my part.
>
> I think that’s the right idea, except that I think you shouldn’t use
> switch_mm for this. Just update the LAM bits directly. Once you read
> mm_cpumask, you should be guaranteed (see next paragraph) that, for each
> CPU that isn’t in the set, if it switches to the new mm, it will notice
> the new LAM.
>
> I say “should be” because I think smp_wmb() is insufficient. You’re
> ordering a write with a subsequent read, which needs smp_mb().
I think it is better to put smp_mb() to make it explicit.
Does the fixup below look okay?
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
index 2d70d75e207f..8da54e7b6f98 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
@@ -367,4 +367,30 @@ static inline void __native_tlb_flush_global(unsigned long cr4)
native_write_cr4(cr4 ^ X86_CR4_PGE);
native_write_cr4(cr4);
}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
+static inline u64 tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(void)
+{
+ u64 lam = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.lam);
+
+ return lam << X86_CR3_LAM_U57_BIT;
+}
+
+static inline void set_tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(u64 mask)
+{
+ this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.lam, mask >> X86_CR3_LAM_U57_BIT);
+}
+
+#else
+
+static inline u64 tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(void)
+{
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static inline void set_tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(u64 mask)
+{
+}
+#endif
+
#endif /* _ASM_X86_TLBFLUSH_H */
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
index 427ebef3f64b..cd2b03fe94c4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
@@ -745,15 +745,16 @@ static long prctl_map_vdso(const struct vdso_image *image, unsigned long addr)
static void enable_lam_func(void *mm)
{
struct mm_struct *loaded_mm = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm);
+ unsigned long lam_mask;
if (loaded_mm != mm)
return;
- /* Counterpart of smp_wmb() in prctl_enable_tagged_addr() */
- smp_rmb();
+ lam_mask = READ_ONCE(loaded_mm->context.lam_cr3_mask);
/* Update CR3 to get LAM active on the CPU */
- switch_mm(loaded_mm, loaded_mm, current);
+ write_cr3(__read_cr3() | lam_mask);
+ set_tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(lam_mask);
}
static bool lam_u48_allowed(void)
@@ -805,7 +806,7 @@ static int prctl_enable_tagged_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long nr_bits)
}
/* Make lam_cr3_mask and untag_mask visible on other CPUs */
- smp_wmb();
+ smp_mb();
on_each_cpu_mask(mm_cpumask(mm), enable_lam_func, mm, true);
out:
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
index c5c4f76329c2..d9a2acdae90f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
@@ -486,31 +486,6 @@ void cr4_update_pce(void *ignored)
static inline void cr4_update_pce_mm(struct mm_struct *mm) { }
#endif
-#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
-static inline u64 tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(void)
-{
- u64 lam = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.lam);
-
- return lam << X86_CR3_LAM_U57_BIT;
-}
-
-static inline void set_tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(u64 mask)
-{
- this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.lam, mask >> X86_CR3_LAM_U57_BIT);
-}
-
-#else
-
-static inline u64 tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(void)
-{
- return 0;
-}
-
-static inline void set_tlbstate_lam_cr3_mask(u64 mask)
-{
-}
-#endif
-
void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
struct task_struct *tsk)
{
@@ -581,7 +556,7 @@ void switch_mm_irqs_off(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
* provides that full memory barrier and core serializing
* instruction.
*/
- if (real_prev == next && prev_lam == new_lam) {
+ if (real_prev == next) {
VM_WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[prev_asid].ctx_id) !=
next->context.ctx_id);
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists