linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] 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:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 17:45:18 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc:     Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        "H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jacon Jun Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling

On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 01:49:30AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:39:52AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 05:45:08PM +0000, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > > Hi Kirill,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 04:00:53AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > > Linear Address Masking[1] (LAM) modifies the checking that is applied to
> > > > 64-bit linear addresses, allowing software to use of the untranslated
> > > > address bits for metadata.
> > > 
> > > We discussed this internally, but didn't bubble up here.
> > > 
> > > Given that we are working on enabling Shared Virtual Addressing (SVA)
> > > within the IOMMU. This permits user to share VA directly with the device,
> > > and the device can participate even in fixing page-faults and such.
> > > 
> > > IOMMU enforces canonical addressing, since we are hijacking the top order
> > > bits for meta-data, it will fail sanity check and we would return a failure
> > > back to device on any page-faults from device. 
> > > 
> > > It also complicates how device TLB and ATS work, and needs some major
> > > improvements to detect device capability to accept tagged pointers, adjust
> > > the devtlb to act accordingly. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Both are orthogonal features, but there is an intersection of both
> > > that are fundamentally incompatible.
> > > 
> > > Its even more important, since an application might be using SVA under the
> > > cover provided by some library that's used without their knowledge.
> > > 
> > > The path would be:
> > > 
> > > 1. Ensure both LAM and SVM are incompatible by design, without major
> > >    changes.
> > >    	- If LAM is enabled already and later SVM enabling is requested by
> > > 	  user, that should fail. and Vice versa.
> > > 	- Provide an API to user to ask for opt-out. Now they know they
> > > 	  must sanitize the pointers before sending to device, or the
> > > 	  working set is already isolated and needs no work.
> > 
> > The patch below implements something like this. It is PoC, build-tested only.
> > 
> > To be honest, I hate it. It is clearly a layering violation. It feels
> > dirty. But I don't see any better way as we tie orthogonal features
> > together.
> > 
> > Also I have no idea how to make forced PASID allocation if LAM enabled.
> > What the API has to look like?
> 
> Jacob, Ashok, any comment on this part?
> 
> I expect in many cases LAM will be enabled very early (like before malloc
> is functinal) in process start and it makes PASID allocation always fail.
> 
> Any way out?

We need closure on this to proceed. Any clue?

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov