linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] x86/fred: Prevent single-step upon ERETU completion

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b65054ae-9bd8-4a7a-9554-a85eb4f445fc@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 11:12:11 -0700
From: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
        shuah@...nel.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] x86/fred: Prevent single-step upon ERETU
 completion

On 6/5/2025 2:51 PM, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>>> Xin Li (Intel) (2):
>>>    x86/fred/signal: Prevent single-step upon ERETU completion
>>>    selftests/x86: Add a test to detect infinite sigtrap handler loop
>>>
>> I tested the patches on a machine that supports FRED. The results are as
>> expected:
>>
> Seeing a split lock warning when running the test:
> x86/split lock detection: #DB: sigtrap_loop_64/4614 took a bus_lock trap
> at address: 0x4011ae
> 
> Wanted to get this out sooner for awareness. Will figure out more
> details and send out an update.

We investigated this issue, and figured out the reason why we see a
split lock warning when running the test:

1) The warning is not caused by the test.
2) It's a false warning.
3) It happens even when bus lock detection (BLD) is not enabled.
4) It happens only on the first #DB on a CPU.

The root cause is that Linux writes 0 to DR6 at boot time, which results
in different values in DR6 depending on whether they support BLD or not.

On CPUs that support BLD, writing 0 to DR6 sets DR6 to 0xFFFF07F0, i.e.,
bit 11 of DR6, its BLD flag, is cleared.  Otherwise 0xFFFF0FF0.

But Intel SDM says, other than BLD induced #DB, DR6.BLD is not modified.
To avoid confusion in identifying debug exceptions, software debug-
exception handlers should set bit 11 to 1 before returning.  DR6.BLD
is always 1 if the processor does not support OS bus-lock detection.

Because Linux clears DR6.BLD on CPUs that support BLD at boot time, the
first #DB will be INCORRECTLY interpreted as a BLD #DB, thus the
warning, no matter whether BLD is enabled or not.

We will be working on a fix to initialize DR6 and DR7 with their
architectural reset values instead of 0s.

Thanks!
     Xin