| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <e81e35b2-466b-4804-b717-f3e6dc26bfa2@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 08:52:33 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Dmitrii Kuvaiskii <dmitrii.kuvaiskii@...el.com>,
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <jarkko@...nel.org>, <kai.huang@...el.com>,
<haitao.huang@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <mona.vij@...el.com>, <kailun.qin@...el.com>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/sgx: Resolve EREMOVE page vs EAUG page data
race
Hi Dmitrii,
On 5/15/2024 6:12 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii wrote:
> Two enclave threads may try to add and remove the same enclave page
> simultaneously (e.g., if the SGX runtime supports both lazy allocation
> and MADV_DONTNEED semantics). Consider some enclave page added to the
> enclave. User space decides to temporarily remove this page (e.g.,
> emulating the MADV_DONTNEED semantics) on CPU1. At the same time, user
> space performs a memory access on the same page on CPU2, which results
> in a #PF and ultimately in sgx_vma_fault(). Scenario proceeds as
> follows:
>
> /*
> * CPU1: User space performs
> * ioctl(SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_REMOVE_PAGES)
> * on enclave page X
> */
> sgx_encl_remove_pages() {
>
> mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
>
> entry = sgx_encl_load_page(encl);
> /*
> * verify that page is
> * trimmed and accepted
> */
>
> mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
>
> /*
> * remove PTE entry; cannot
> * be performed under lock
> */
> sgx_zap_enclave_ptes(encl);
> /*
> * Fault on CPU2 on same page X
> */
> sgx_vma_fault() {
> /*
> * PTE entry was removed, but the
> * page is still in enclave's xarray
> */
> xa_load(&encl->page_array) != NULL ->
> /*
> * SGX driver thinks that this page
> * was swapped out and loads it
> */
> mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
> /*
> * this is effectively a no-op
> */
> entry = sgx_encl_load_page_in_vma();
> /*
> * add PTE entry
> *
> * *BUG*: a PTE is installed for a
> * page in process of being removed
> */
> vmf_insert_pfn(...);
>
> mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
> return VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> }
> /*
> * continue with page removal
> */
> mutex_lock(&encl->lock);
>
> sgx_encl_free_epc_page(epc_page) {
> /*
> * remove page via EREMOVE
> */
> /*
> * free EPC page
> */
> sgx_free_epc_page(epc_page);
> }
>
> xa_erase(&encl->page_array);
>
> mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
> }
>
> Here, CPU1 removed the page. However CPU2 installed the PTE entry on the
> same page. This enclave page becomes perpetually inaccessible (until
> another SGX_IOC_ENCLAVE_REMOVE_PAGES ioctl). This is because the page is
> marked accessible in the PTE entry but is not EAUGed, and any subsequent
> access to this page raises a fault: with the kernel believing there to
> be a valid VMA, the unlikely error code X86_PF_SGX encountered by code
> path do_user_addr_fault() -> access_error() causes the SGX driver's
> sgx_vma_fault() to be skipped and user space receives a SIGSEGV instead.
> The userspace SIGSEGV handler cannot perform EACCEPT because the page
> was not EAUGed. Thus, the user space is stuck with the inaccessible
> page.
>
> Fix this race by forcing the fault handler on CPU2 to back off if the
> page is currently being removed (on CPU1). This is achieved by
> introducing a new flag SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_REMOVED, which is unset by
> default and set only right-before the first mutex_unlock() in
> sgx_encl_remove_pages(). Upon loading the page, CPU2 checks whether this
> page is being removed, and if yes then CPU2 backs off and waits until
> the page is completely removed. After that, any memory access to this
> page results in a normal "allocate and EAUG a page on #PF" flow.
>
> Fixes: 9849bb27152c ("x86/sgx: Support complete page removal")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Dmitrii Kuvaiskii <dmitrii.kuvaiskii@...el.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c | 3 ++-
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h | 3 +++
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
> index 41f14b1a3025..7ccd8b2fce5f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.c
> @@ -257,7 +257,8 @@ static struct sgx_encl_page *__sgx_encl_load_page(struct sgx_encl *encl,
>
> /* Entry successfully located. */
> if (entry->epc_page) {
> - if (entry->desc & SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_RECLAIMED)
> + if (entry->desc & (SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_RECLAIMED |
> + SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_REMOVED))
> return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>
> return entry;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
> index f94ff14c9486..fff5f2293ae7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/encl.h
> @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@
> /* 'desc' bit marking that the page is being reclaimed. */
> #define SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_RECLAIMED BIT(3)
>
> +/* 'desc' bit marking that the page is being removed. */
> +#define SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_REMOVED BIT(2)
> +
> struct sgx_encl_page {
> unsigned long desc;
> unsigned long vm_max_prot_bits:8;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c
> index b65ab214bdf5..c542d4dd3e64 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/ioctl.c
> @@ -1142,6 +1142,7 @@ static long sgx_encl_remove_pages(struct sgx_encl *encl,
> * Do not keep encl->lock because of dependency on
> * mmap_lock acquired in sgx_zap_enclave_ptes().
> */
> + entry->desc |= SGX_ENCL_PAGE_BEING_REMOVED;
> mutex_unlock(&encl->lock);
>
> sgx_zap_enclave_ptes(encl, addr);
Thank you very much for tracking down and fixing this issue.
Acked-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists