linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: Enable data independent timing (DIT) in the kernel

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: <CAMj1kXFv5gyp=jkgHPJPT9nLW16jpBF4rdo6tDCZYAPgkRma3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 4 Nov 2022 10:29:10 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "Jason A . Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Adam Langley <agl@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] arm64: Enable data independent timing (DIT) in the kernel

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 at 09:09, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2022 at 01:27:41PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > Given that running privileged code with DIT disabled on a CPU that
> > implements support for it may result in a side channel that exposes
> > privileged data to unprivileged user space processes, let's enable DIT
> > while running in the kernel if supported by all CPUs.
>
> This patch looks good to me, though I'm not an expert in low-level arm64 stuff.
> It's a bit unfortunate that we have to manually create the .inst to enable DIT
> instead of just using the assembler.  But it looks like there's a reason for it
> (it's done for PAN et al. too), and based on the manual it looks correct.
>

Yes. The reason is that the assembler requires -march=armv8.2-a to be
passed when using the DIT register (and similar requirements apply to
the other registers). However, doing so may result in object code that
can no longer run on pre-v8.2 cores, whereas the DIT accesses
themselves are only emitted in a carefully controlled manner anyway,
so keeping the arch baseline to v8.0 and using .inst is the cleanest
way around this.


> Two nits below:
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > index 7d301700d1a9..18e065f5130c 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > @@ -94,15 +94,18 @@
> >  #define PSTATE_PAN                   pstate_field(0, 4)
> >  #define PSTATE_UAO                   pstate_field(0, 3)
> >  #define PSTATE_SSBS                  pstate_field(3, 1)
> > +#define PSTATE_DIT                   pstate_field(3, 2)
> >  #define PSTATE_TCO                   pstate_field(3, 4)
> >
> >  #define SET_PSTATE_PAN(x)            __emit_inst(0xd500401f | PSTATE_PAN | ((!!x) << PSTATE_Imm_shift))
> >  #define SET_PSTATE_UAO(x)            __emit_inst(0xd500401f | PSTATE_UAO | ((!!x) << PSTATE_Imm_shift))
> >  #define SET_PSTATE_SSBS(x)           __emit_inst(0xd500401f | PSTATE_SSBS | ((!!x) << PSTATE_Imm_shift))
> > +#define SET_PSTATE_DIT(x)            __emit_inst(0xd500401f | PSTATE_DIT | ((!!x) << PSTATE_Imm_shift))
> >  #define SET_PSTATE_TCO(x)            __emit_inst(0xd500401f | PSTATE_TCO | ((!!x) << PSTATE_Imm_shift))
> >
> >  #define set_pstate_pan(x)            asm volatile(SET_PSTATE_PAN(x))
> >  #define set_pstate_uao(x)            asm volatile(SET_PSTATE_UAO(x))
> > +#define set_pstate_dit(x)            asm volatile(SET_PSTATE_DIT(x))
> >  #define set_pstate_ssbs(x)           asm volatile(SET_PSTATE_SSBS(x))
>
> To keep the order consistent, set_pstate_dit() should be defined after
> set_pstate_ssbs(), not before.
>

Ack. Seems I just inserted it one from the bottom without actually reading :-)

> >  /* Internal helper functions to match cpu capability type */
> >  static bool
> >  cpucap_late_cpu_optional(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
> > @@ -2640,6 +2645,17 @@ static const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities arm64_features[] = {
> >               .matches = has_cpuid_feature,
> >               .cpu_enable = cpu_trap_el0_impdef,
> >       },
> > +     {
> > +             .desc = "Data independent timing control (DIT)",
> > +             .capability = ARM64_HAS_DIT,
> > +             .type = ARM64_CPUCAP_SYSTEM_FEATURE,
> > +             .matches = has_cpuid_feature,
> > +             .sys_reg = SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1,
> > +             .field_pos = ID_AA64PFR0_EL1_DIT_SHIFT,
> > +             .field_width = 4,
> > +             .min_field_value = 1,
> > +             .cpu_enable = cpu_enable_dit,
> > +     },
>
> The other entries in this array are explicit about '.sign = FTR_UNSIGNED'
> (even though FTR_UNSIGNED is defined to false, so it's the default value).
>

Ack.