linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/cpufeature: Add feature dependency checks

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: <096cdf1b-bc79-4e88-8ae9-99a373245ef8@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 12:05:19 -0700
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: <x86@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Ingo
 Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Uros Bizjak
	<ubizjak@...il.com>, Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>, Peter Zijlstra
	<peterz@...radead.org>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, Tony Luck
	<tony.luck@...el.com>, Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
	Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
	Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/cpufeature: Add feature dependency checks

On 8/22/2024 4:27 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2024, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> Arguably, this situation should only happen on broken hardware and it may not
>> make sense to add such a check to the kernel. OTOH, this can be viewed as a
>> safety mechanism to make failures more graceful on such configurations in real
>> or virtual environments.
> 
> And goofy Kconfigs.   But yeah, lack of any meaningful fallout is why my version
> didn't go anywhere.
> 

By fallout do you mean that the observed behavior when the kernel runs
into such a misconfiguration or just the general lack of such
misconfigured hardware/guest?

I tried experimenting with the behavior for the last entry on the
cpuid_deps[] table:
{ X86_FEATURE_FRED,                     X86_FEATURE_WRMSRNS   },

In this case, even if WRMSRNS is not present, the kernel would go ahead
and enable FRED, which would cause a panic when wrmsrns() is exercised
in update_task_stack().

I agree to the second part that such conditions are more likely to
happen in pre-production environments. But I still feel that for the
rare case when something like this seeps through it would be better to
disable the feature upfront than run in a kernel panic or some other
unexpected behavior.

> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221203003745.1475584-2-seanjc@google.com
> 

The code is very similar to the one I proposed. If we do take this
forward, would it be fine if I add a Originally-by tag from you?


>> +void filter_feature_dependencies(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> +{
>> +	const struct cpuid_dep *d;
>> +
>> +	for (d = cpuid_deps; d->feature; d++) {
>> +		if (boot_cpu_has(d->feature) && !boot_cpu_has(d->depends))
> 
> I don't think checking boot_cpu_has() is correct, it's entirely possible for a CPU
> to have divergent features from the boot CPU, e.g. if a feature is dependent on
> BIOS enabling (or disabling) and BIOS messed up.
> 

Yeah, makes sense. cpu_has() would be better suited as you have done in
your original patch.

>> +			do_clear_cpu_cap(c, d->feature);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> -- 
>> 2.34.1
>>