linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/5] x86/pat: Let pat_pfn_immune_to_uc_mtrr() check MTRR for untracked PAT range

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]

Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 08:26:37 +0000
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To: "Zhao, Yan Y" <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
	<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>, "jgg@...dia.com"
	<jgg@...dia.com>
CC: "iommu@...ts.linux.dev" <iommu@...ts.linux.dev>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
	<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org"
	<peterz@...radead.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
	"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>, "will@...nel.org" <will@...nel.org>,
	"robin.murphy@....com" <robin.murphy@....com>, "baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com"
	<baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] x86/pat: Let pat_pfn_immune_to_uc_mtrr() check MTRR
 for untracked PAT range

> From: Zhao, Yan Y <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 2:19 PM
> 
> However, lookup_memtype() defaults to returning WB for PFNs within the
> untracked PAT range, regardless of their actual MTRR type. This behavior
> could lead KVM to misclassify the PFN as non-MMIO, permitting cacheable
> guest access. Such access might result in MCE on certain platforms, (e.g.
> clflush on VGA range (0xA0000-0xBFFFF) triggers MCE on some platforms).

the VGA range is not exposed to any guest today. So is it just trying to
fix a theoretical problem?

> @@ -705,7 +705,17 @@ static enum page_cache_mode
> lookup_memtype(u64 paddr)
>   */
>  bool pat_pfn_immune_to_uc_mtrr(unsigned long pfn)
>  {
> -	enum page_cache_mode cm = lookup_memtype(PFN_PHYS(pfn));
> +	u64 paddr = PFN_PHYS(pfn);
> +	enum page_cache_mode cm;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Check MTRR type for untracked pat range since lookup_memtype()
> always
> +	 * returns WB for this range.
> +	 */
> +	if (x86_platform.is_untracked_pat_range(paddr, paddr + PAGE_SIZE))
> +		cm = pat_x_mtrr_type(paddr, paddr + PAGE_SIZE,
> _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_WB);

doing so violates the name of this function. The PAT of the untracked
range is still WB and not immune to UC MTRR.

> +	else
> +		cm = lookup_memtype(paddr);
> 
>  	return cm == _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_UC ||
>  	       cm == _PAGE_CACHE_MODE_UC_MINUS ||