linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/fpu/xstate: Add more diagnostic information on inconsistent xstate sizes

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: <50e67263-33ba-9921-1bc2-a37b99bc2459@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:21:25 -0700
From:   Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To:     "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        Chintan M Patel <chintan.m.patel@...el.com>,
        Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/fpu/xstate: Add more diagnostic information on
 inconsistent xstate sizes

Hi, Chang,

On 4/11/23 09:29, Chang S. Bae wrote:
> On 4/10/2023 1:43 PM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>> On 4/7/23 11:22, Chang S. Bae wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2023 11:39 AM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c 
>>>> b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
>>>> index 0bab497c9436..5f27fcdc6c90 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/xstate.c
>>>> @@ -602,8 +602,37 @@ static bool __init 
>>>> paranoid_xstate_size_valid(unsigned int kernel_size)
>>>>           }
>>>>       }
>>>>       size = xstate_calculate_size(fpu_kernel_cfg.max_features, 
>>>> compacted);
>>>> -    XSTATE_WARN_ON(size != kernel_size,
>>>> -               "size %u != kernel_size %u\n", size, kernel_size);
>>>> +    if (size != kernel_size) {
>>>> +        u64 xcr0, ia32_xss;
>>>> +
>>>> +        XSTATE_WARN_ON(1, "size %u != kernel_size %u\n",
>>>> +                   size, kernel_size);
>>>> +
>>>> +        /* Show more information to help diagnose the size issue. */
>>>> +        pr_info("x86/fpu: max_features=0x%llx\n",
>>>> +            fpu_kernel_cfg.max_features);
>>>> +        print_xstate_offset_size();
>>>> +        pr_info("x86/fpu: total size: %u bytes\n", size);
>>>> +        xcr0 = xgetbv(XCR_XFEATURE_ENABLED_MASK);
>>>> +        if (compacted) {
>>>> +            rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_XSS, ia32_xss);
>>>
>>> This shouldn't be directly read here because of the LBR state component.
>>>
>>> See the function comment:
>>>
>>>   * Independent XSAVE features allocate their own buffers and are not
>>>   * covered by these checks. Only the size of the buffer for task->fpu
>>>   * is checked here.
>>>
>>> But, isn't that max_features bitmask pretty much about it?
>>
>> How about getting IA32_XSS from xfeatures_mask_supervisor()? That's 
>> how to get kernel_size by setting IA32_XSS without independent 
>> features in get_xsave_compacted_size()
> I think what it tests here is comparing the sizes between the kernel 
> code and microcode calculations on the same input, which is the 
> max_features bitmask.
> 
> We know that the kernel code calculates the size based on it and also 
> takes it to write down there -- XCR0 and IA32_XSS. Then, showing that 
> bitmask looks to be enough I thought, no?

First of all, max_features is shown already.

Kernel_size from CPUID.0xd.0x1:EBX takes XCR0 | IA32_XSS as input. 
Platform may take wrong XCR0 or IA32_XSS and get wrong kernel_size. The 
purpose of this patch is to provide more debug info to help debug 
platform/kernel issue. So instead of a whole max_features, xgetbv() to 
get XCR0 and xfeatures_mask_supervisor() to get IA32_XSS provides more 
debug info in case platform may have issue in XCR0 or IA32_XSS.

In other words, splitting max_features into XCR0 and IA32_XSS and 
showing them individually provide more useful debug info than one single 
max_features value.

Does it make sense?

> 
> I still expect some acknowledgment of what is coded here for the kernel 
> calculation details.

The kernel calculation is shown in
+        print_xstate_offset_size();
+        pr_info("x86/fpu: total size: %u bytes\n", size);

Isn't that detailed enough to show offset and size of each xstate and 
sum of sizes?

After that,
+	pr_info("x86/fpu: kernel_size from CPUID.0xd.0x%x:EBX: %u bytes\n",
+               compacted ? 1 : 0, kernel_size);
shows how kernel_size is calculated from CPUID?

Using the above debug info, a real platform CPUID issue is shown clearly.

What other details are needed?

Thanks.

-Fenghua