linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/pat: check for MTRRs enabled in memtype

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <47fcd1a8-1c5a-0044-38c4-cf04095c1150@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2023 10:12:27 +0100
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        lists@...dbynature.de, mikelley@...rosoft.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/pat: check for MTRRs enabled in memtype_reserve()

On 07.02.23 09:49, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> 
>> Today memtype_reserve() bails out early if pat_enabled() returns false.
>> The same can be done in case MTRRs aren't enabled.
>>
>> This will reinstate the behavior of memtype_reserve() before commit
>> 72cbc8f04fe2 ("x86/PAT: Have pat_enabled() properly reflect state when
>> running on Xen"). There have been reports about that commit breaking
>> SEV-SNP guests under Hyper-V, which was tried to be resolved by commit
>> 90b926e68f50 ("x86/pat: Fix pat_x_mtrr_type() for MTRR disabled case"),
>> but that again resulted in problems with Xen PV guests.
>>
>> Fixes: 72cbc8f04fe2 ("x86/PAT: Have pat_enabled() properly reflect state when running on Xen")
>> Fixes: 90b926e68f50 ("x86/pat: Fix pat_x_mtrr_type() for MTRR disabled case")
>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c | 10 +++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
>> index fb4b1b5e0dea..18f612b43763 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c
>> @@ -557,8 +557,12 @@ int memtype_reserve(u64 start, u64 end, enum page_cache_mode req_type,
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>   	}
>>   
>> -	if (!pat_enabled()) {
>> -		/* This is identical to page table setting without PAT */
>> +	/*
>> +	 * PAT disabled or MTRRs disabled don't require any memory type
>> +	 * tracking or type adjustments, as there can't be any conflicts
>> +	 * between PAT and MTRRs with at least one of both being disabled.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!pat_enabled() || !mtrr_enabled()) {
>>   		if (new_type)
>>   			*new_type = req_type;
> 
> Doesn't memtype_reserve() also check for overlapping ranges & type
> compatibility in memtype_check_conflict(), etc., which can occur even in a
> pure PAT setup? Ie. are we 100% sure that in the !MTRR case it would be a
> NOP?
> 
> But even if it's a functional NOP as you claim, we'd still be better off if
> the memtype tree was still intact - instead of just turning off the API.

Yes, that's basically the issue discussed in [patch 0/6].

It should still be better than the original case (PAT and MTRR off, but
the ability to use PAT nevertheless), though.

> 
> Also, speling nit:
> 
>     s/one of both
>      /one or both

Hmm, but only if I drop the "at least". I don't really mind either way.


Juergen

Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3099 bytes)

Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)