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: <CAGdbjm+fMBnkKDVFpf-fAEbYxTUWR0od2JzTTbEMoPVS3J_Faw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 16:07:49 -0800
From: Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	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>, 
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.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 12:47 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:36:50PM +0000, Kevin Loughlin wrote:
> > SEV/SME code can execute prior to page table fixups for kernel
> > relocation. However, as with global variables accessed in
> > __startup_64(), the compiler is not required to generate RIP-relative
> > accesses for SEV/SME global variables, causing certain flavors of SEV
> > hosts and guests built with clang to crash during boot.
>
> So, about that. If I understand my gcc toolchain folks correctly:
>
> mcmodel=kernel - everything fits into the high 31 bit of the address
> space
>
> -fPIE/PIC - position independent
>
> And supplied both don't make a whole lotta of sense: if you're building
> position-independent, then mcmodel=kernel would be overridden by the
> first.
>
> I have no clue why clang enabled it...
>
> So, *actually* the proper fix here should be not to add this "fixed_up"
> gunk everywhere but remove mcmodel=kernel from the build and simply do
> -fPIE/PIC.

I believe that the key distinction is that using mcmodel=kernel (upper
2 GB of address space) or the similar mcmodel=small (lower 2 GB) means
the compiler *can* use RIP-relative addressing for globals (because
everything is within +/- 2GB of RIP) but is not *required* to do so.
In contrast, fPIE/fPIC *requires* relative addressing but does not
necessarily require a specific 2 GB placement range. Altogether, I do
think there are use cases for both options individually. I can't think
of a reason why gcc wouldn't be able to support mcmodel=kernel in
conjunction with fPIE off the top of my head, but I admittedly haven't
looked into it; I simply observed that the combination is not
currently supported.

RE: compiling the whole x86-64 kernel with fPIE/fPIC, I believe the
required changes would be very extensive (see "[PATCH RFC 00/43]
x86/pie: Make kernel image's virtual address flexible" at
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1682673542.git.houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com/).