linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86: disable non-instrumented version of copy

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: <74d900cf-ab90-49ea-ba55-380d7df59526@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 07:21:38 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: disable non-instrumented version of copy_mc when
 KMSAN is enabled

On 3/1/24 14:52, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>  unsigned long __must_check copy_mc_to_kernel(void *dst, const void *src, unsigned len)
>  {
> -	if (copy_mc_fragile_enabled)
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) && copy_mc_fragile_enabled)
>  		return copy_mc_fragile(dst, src, len);
> -	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ERMS))
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) && static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ERMS))
>  		return copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string(dst, src, len);
>  	memcpy(dst, src, len);
>  	return 0;
> @@ -74,14 +74,14 @@ unsigned long __must_check copy_mc_to_user(void __user *dst, const void *src, un
>  {
>  	unsigned long ret;
>  
> -	if (copy_mc_fragile_enabled) {
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) && copy_mc_fragile_enabled) {
>  		__uaccess_begin();
>  		ret = copy_mc_fragile((__force void *)dst, src, len);
>  		__uaccess_end();
>  		return ret;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ERMS)) {
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) && static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ERMS)) {
>  		__uaccess_begin();
>  		ret = copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string((__force void *)dst, src, len);
>  		__uaccess_end();

Where does the false positive _come_ from?  Can we fix copy_mc_fragile()
and copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string() instead of just not using them?

The three enable_copy_mc_fragile() are presumably doing so for a reason.
 What is this patch's impact on _those_?

Third, instead of sprinkling IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) checks in random
spots, can we do this in a central spot?