Message-ID: <20240121153702.GAZa06Hvt8b0hQ4LjR@fat_crate.local>
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 16:37:02 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@...gle.com>,
	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>,
	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 Sun, Jan 21, 2024 at 03:12:56PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> My preliminary conclusion confirms that the SEV code is quite
> problematic in this regard (which is the reason for this patch, so we
> already knew that, of course).

So we can try to improve the situation gradually so that we don't
break current usages.

> TL;DR I think we will need a way to build certain objects with -fPIC
> (as we do in other places and on other architectures), but we should
> add instrumentation to ensure that these issues can be detected at
> build time. The SEV boot code is especially tricky here as very few
> people can even test it,

No worries about that - us, the Google cloud folks, AWS and a bunch of
others are people I could think of who could help out. :-)

> so applying this patch and hoping that the compiler will never
> generate reachable code paths that only work correctly when executed
> via the ordinary kernel virtual mapping is not sufficient.

..

> 1)
> WARNING: modpost: vmlinux: section mismatch in reference:
> startup_64_pi+0x33 (section: .pi.text) -> sme_enable (section:
> .init.text)

sme_enable() is in the 1:1 mapping TU
arch/x86/mm/mem_encrypt_identity.c, see

  1cd9c22fee3a ("x86/mm/encrypt: Move page table helpers into separate translation unit")

so might as well move it to .pi.text

The rest below look like they'd need more serious untangling.

Btw, I just had another idea: we could remove -mcmodel=kernel from the
build flags of the whole kernel once -fPIC is enabled so that gcc can be
forced to do rIP-relative addressing.

I'm being told the reason it doesn't allow mcmodel=kernel with -fPIC is
only a matter of removing that check and that it *should* otherwise work
but someone needs to try that. And then there are older gccs which we
cannot fix.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

Powered by blists - more mailing lists