linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2] x86/sev: enforce RIP-relative accesses in early SEV/SME code

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: <CAGdbjmLrH_fZMS6pCX5pNKCJ2jLm1xAcJkHv5R4Z7MycvhbR5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 14:13:24 -0800
From: Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>, 
	Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, 
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>, 
	Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@....com>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, 
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Steve Rutherford <srutherford@...gle.com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, 
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@...il.com>, 
	Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@...sion.com>, David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, 
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, 
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, 
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@...gle.com>, 
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>, Michael Roth <michael.roth@....com>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev, Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@....com>, 
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Adam Dunlap <acdunlap@...gle.com>, 
	Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>, Jacob Xu <jacobhxu@...gle.com>, 
	Sidharth Telang <sidtelang@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] x86/sev: enforce RIP-relative accesses in early
 SEV/SME code

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 2:12 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 10:29:36AM -0800, Kevin Loughlin wrote:
> >
> > Per my tests, yes we can; I replaced the fixup_*() functions with
> > GET_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR()/PTR_TO_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR(), and guests with and
> > without SEV, SEV-ES, and SEV-SNP all successfully booted under both
> > clang and gcc builds.
>
> BTW, do we need both macros? Caller can do &var, right?

While I don't think the caller doing "&var" would work without passing
it as a separate argument like `GET_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR(var, &var)` (as
we would still need the original var's string name in the macro for
the inline assembly `#var(%%rip)`), we should nonetheless be able to
merge both into a single macro with one "var" argument. Specifically,
the only current difference between the macros is the input operand
constraint, and GET_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR()'s constraint will work for
both. I will make this change in v3.

> If we are okay with single macro, maybe rename it to RIP_RELATIVE_PTR().

With the merge into a single macro (and upon thinking about the
macro's behavior), I have a slight preference for
`RIP_RELATIVE_ADDR()` in v3 because it makes it clearer that the macro
behaves like the address-of operator "&" (just guaranteeing the use of
RIP-relative addressing to obtain the address). However, I'm happy to
go with RIP_RELATIVE_PTR() if you feel that's better.

> One other thing: I see you sprinkle casts to for every use of the macros.
> But why? void* can cast to any other pointer without explicit casting.

You're right; the casting is unnecessary. I'll eliminate it in v3. Thanks.

> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 4:17 AM Kirill A. Shutemov
> > <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, is there any reason why GET_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR() and
> > > PTR_TO_RIP_RELATIVE_PTR() have to be macros? Inline functions would be
> > > cleaner.
> >
> > I used macros because we need to use both the global variable itself
> > and the global variable's string name (obtained via #var in the macro)
> > in the inline assembly. As a secondary reason, the macro also avoids
> > the need to provide separate functions for each type of variable for
> > which we'd like to get RIP-relative pointers (ex: u64, unsigned int,
> > unsigned long, etc.).
>
> If we do it only on pointers, wouldn't void * -> void * be enough?

Only using pointers would indeed eliminate the secondary factor as a
reason to use macros. However, the primary motivation for a macro
would remain: we still need the string name of the variable for the
inline assembly.