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: <Y9pgzGr4MccwEJAl@zn.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:53:32 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        "Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Stefan Talpalaru <stefantalpalaru@...oo.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zilstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "andrew.cooper3@...rix.com" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        "Ostrovsky, Boris" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Martin Pohlack <mpohlack@...zon.de>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 Part2 3/9] x86/microcode/intel: Fix collect_cpu_info()
 to reflect current microcode

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 10:43:23PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> In an ideal world yes. But what if T1 arrives here and tries to do the
> update while T0, which has returned out of the microcode update
> code and could be doing anything, happen to be doing WRMSR(some MSR
> that the ucode update is tinkering with).
> 
> Now T0 explodes (not literally, I hope!) but does something crazy because
> it was in the middle of some microcode flow that got updated between two
> operations.

So first of all, I'm wondering whether the scenario you're chasing is
something completely hypothetical or you're actually thinking of
something concrete which has actually happened or there's high potential
for it.

In that case, that late patching sync algorithm would need to be made
more robust to handle cases like that.

Because from what I'm reading above, this doesn't sound like the
reporting is wrong only but more like, if T0 fails the update and T1
gets to do that update for a change, then crap can happen.

Which means, our update dance cannot handle that case properly.

Hmmm...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ