linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] x86/tdx: Unify TDX_HYPERCALL and TDX_MODULE

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: <6b425468-3aac-0123-c690-df8d750ce29e@suse.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jul 2023 10:02:01 +0300
From:   Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] x86/tdx: Unify TDX_HYPERCALL and TDX_MODULE_CALL
 assembly



On 17.07.23 г. 9:35 ч., Huang, Kai wrote:
> 
>>> +/* Called from __tdx_hypercall() for unrecoverable failure */
>>> +static noinstr void __tdx_hypercall_failed(void)
>>> +{
>>> +	instrumentation_begin();
>>> +	panic("TDVMCALL failed. TDX module bug?");
>>> +}
>>
>> So what's the deal with this instrumentation here. The instruction is
>> noinstr, so you want to make just the panic call itself instrumentable?,
>> if so where's the instrumentation_end() cal;?No instrumentation_end()
>> call. Actually is this complexity really worth it for the failure case?
>>
>> AFAICS there is a single call site for __tdx_hypercall_failed so why
>> noot call panic() directly ?
> 
> W/o this patch, the __tdx_hypercall_failed() is called from the TDX_HYPERCALL
> assembly, which is in .noinstr.text, and 'instrumentation_begin()' was needed to
> avoid the build warning I suppose.
> 
> However now with this patch __tdx_hypercall_failed() is called from
> __tdx_hypercall() which is a C function w/o 'noinstr' annotation, thus I believe
> instrumentation_begin() and 'noinstr' annotation are not needed anymore.
> 
> I didn't notice this while moving this function around and my kernel build test
> didn't warn me about this.  I'll change in next version.
> 
> In fact, perhaps this patch perhaps is too big for review.  I will also try to
> split it to smaller ones.

Can't you simply call panic() directly? Less going around the code while 
someone is reading it?

<snip>