linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/cpu: fix invalid MTRR mask values for SEV or TME

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: <CABgObfbetwO=4whrCE+cFfCPJa0nsK=h6sQAaoamJH=UqaJqTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2024 18:21:07 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Zixi Chen <zixchen@...hat.com>, Adam Dunlap <acdunlap@...gle.com>, 
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>, 
	Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org, 
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] x86/cpu: fix invalid MTRR mask values for SEV or TME

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:08 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 7:29 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> > I really wanted get_cpu_address_sizes() to be the one and only spot
> > where c->x86_phys_bits is established.  That way, we don't get a bunch
> > of code all of the place tweaking it and fighting for who "wins".
> > We're not there yet, but the approach in this patch moves it back in the
> > wrong direction because it permits the random tweaking of c->x86_phys_bits.
>
> I see your point; one of my earlier attempts added a
> ->c_detect_mem_encrypt() callback that basically amounted to either
> amd_detect_mem_encrypt() or detect_tme(). I bailed out of it mostly
> because these functions do more than adjusting phys_bits, and it
> seemed arbitrary to call them from get_cpu_address_sizes(). The two
> approaches share the idea of centralizing the computation of
> x86_phys_bits in get_cpu_address_sizes().
>
> There is unfortunately an important hurdle for your patch, in that
> currently the BSP and AP flows are completely different. For the BSP
> the flow is ->c_early_init(), then get_cpu_address_sizes(), then again
> ->c_early_init() called by ->c_init(), then ->c_init(). For APs it is
> get_cpu_address_sizes(), then ->c_early_init() called by ->c_init(),
> then the rest of ->c_init(). And let's not even look at
> ->c_identify().
>
> This difference is bad for your patch, because get_cpu_address_sizes()
> is called too early to see enc_phys_bits on APs. But it was also
> something that fbf6449f84bf didn't take into account, because it left
> behind the tentative initialization of x86_*_bits in identify_cpu(),
> while removing it from early_identify_cpu().  And
>
> TBH my first reaction after Kirill pointed me to fbf6449f84bf was to
> revert it. It's not like the code before was much less of a dumpster
> fire, but that commit made the BSP vs. AP mess even worse. But it
> fixed a real-world bug and it did remove most of the "first set then
> adjust" logic, at least for the BSP, so a revert wasn't on the table
> and patch 1 was what came out of it.
>
> I know that in general in Linux we prefer to fix things for good.
> Dancing one step behind and two ahead comes with the the risk that you
> only do the step behind. But in the end something like this patch 1
> would have to be posted for stable branches (and Greg doesn't like
> one-off patches), and I am not even sure it's a step behind because it
> removes _some_ of the BSP vs. AP differences introduced by
> fbf6449f84bf.
>
> In a nutshell: I don't dislike the idea behind your patch, but the
> code is just not ready for it.

This is the diffstat before your patch can be applied more or less as is:

$ git diffstat origin/master
 arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h |   1 +
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c        |  12 ++--
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/centaur.c    |  13 ++---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c     | 103 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/hygon.c      |   2 -
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c      |   4 +-
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/transmeta.c  |   2 -
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/zhaoxin.c    |   1 -
 8 files changed, 69 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)

$ git log --oneline --reverse origin/master..
d639afed02aa x86/cpu/common: move code up to early
get_cpu_address_sizes() to a new function
40d34260a4ba x86/cpu/common: pull get_cpu_*() calls common to BSPs and
APs to a new function
67b9839f9c38 x86/cpu/common: put all setup_force/clear capabilities together
ebeae7f91cbc x86/cpu/centaur: do everything before
early_init_centaur() in early_init_centaur()
d62fa7400885 x86/cpu/cyrix: call early init function from init function
0aa0916cd7e0 x86/cpu/common: call early_init function on APs from common code
d656b651d217 (HEAD) dave


I still haven't tested very well, but anyway, what do you think?

Paolo