linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 Part2 4/9] x86/microcode: Do not call apply

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, 1 Feb 2023 18:51:44 -0800
From:   Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Reinette Chatre <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>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Martin Pohlack <mpohlack@...zon.de>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 Part2 4/9] x86/microcode: Do not call
 apply_microcode() on sibling threads

On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 11:40:58PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 02:21:18PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > That works great, unless T0 experiences an error.  In that case, T0 will
> > jump out of __reload_late() after failing to do the update.  T1 will
> > come bumbling along after it and will enter ->apply_microcode(),
> > blissfully unaware of T0's failure.  T1 will assume that it is supposed
> > to do T0's job, noting "rev < mc->hdr.rev".  T1 will write the MSR while
> > T0 is off doing god knows what.
> > 
> > T1 should not even be attempting to do ->apply_microcode() because T0 is
> > not quiescent.
> 
> Yah, thanks for explaining properly.
> 
> So, if T0 fails, then we will say that it failed. The ->apply_microcode()
> call on T1 was never meant to apply any microcode - just to update the
> cached data.

The commit log "attempted" to convey that, replace primary with T0, and
secondary with T1.

> 
> Now, if T0 fails, then it doesn't matter what T1 does - you have a
> bigger problem:
> 
> A subset of the cores is running with new microcode while other subset
> with the old one. Now this is a shit situation I don't want to be in.
> 
> And I don't have a good way out of it.

T1 shouldn't be sent down the apply_microcode() path, but instead
just gather and update the per-cpu info reflecting the current revision.

Patch 3 and 4 attempted to that. 

In addition....to ensure cores being out of sync within themselves

At wait_for_siblings: Each thread can check their rev against the BSP (yes
BSP can be removed, but we can elect a core leader) and if they are
different we can either warn/taint or pull the plug and panic.


> 
> Revert to the old patch? Maybe...
> 
> Retry to application on all again with the hope that it works this time?
> 
> What if some core touches a MSR being added with the new microcode
> patch?
> 
> Late loading is a big PITA. As we've been preaching for a while now.
> 

Cheers,
Ashok