linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4d35124d-527d-ec1c-1eb1-2d98e9d0da46@loongson.cn>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:04:14 +0800
From: maobibo <maobibo@...ngson.cn>
To: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>, WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
 Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Tianrui Zhao <zhaotianrui@...ngson.cn>,
 Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/7] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor



On 2024/4/2 上午10:49, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-04-02 at 09:43 +0800, maobibo wrote:
>>> Sorry for the late reply, but I think it may be a bit non-constructive
>>> to repeatedly submit the same code without due explanation in our
>>> previous review threads. Let me try to recollect some of the details
>>> though...
>> Because your review comments about hypercall method is wrong, I need not
>> adopt it.
> 
> Again it's unfair to say so considering the lack of LVZ documentation.
> 
> /* snip */
> 
>>
>> 1. T0-T7 are scratch registers during SYSCALL ABI, this is what you
>> suggest, does there exist information leaking to user space from T0-T7
>> registers?
> 
> It's not a problem.  When syscall returns RESTORE_ALL_AND_RET is invoked
> despite T0-T7 are not saved.  So a "junk" value will be read from the
> leading PT_SIZE bytes of the kernel stack for this thread.
For you it is "junk" value, some guys maybe thinks it is useful.

There is another issue, since kernel restore T0-T7 registers and user 
space save T0-T7. Why T0-T7 is scratch registers rather than preserve 
registers like other architecture? What is the advantage if it is 
scratch registers?

Regards
Bibo Mao
> 
> The leading PT_SIZE bytes of the kernel stack is dedicated for storing
> the struct pt_regs representing the reg file of the thread in the
> userspace.
> 
> Thus we may only read out the userspace T0-T7 value stored when the same
> thread was interrupted or trapped last time, or 0 (if the thread was
> never interrupted or trapped before).
> 
> And it's impossible to read some data used by the kernel internally, or
> some data of another thread.
> 
> But indeed there is some improvement here.  Zeroing these registers
> seems cleaner than reading out the junk values, and also faster (move
> $t0, $r0 is faster than ld.d $t0, $sp, PT_R12).  Not sure if it's worthy
> to violate Huacai's "keep things simple" aspiration though.
>