From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
jan.setjeeilers@oracle.com, Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
oweisse@google.com, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.de>,
mgross@linux.intel.com, kuzuno@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 12/21] x86/pti: Use PTI stack instead of trampoline stack
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 09:05:53 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f6a446a-e656-627c-27f2-8411f318448c@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWBwFifg3mniUcdB7PO1CgzcxaNPYuWK3c7zK9H-hv=6Q@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/19/20 2:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 8:59 AM Alexandre Chartre
> <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/17/20 4:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 7:07 AM Alexandre Chartre
>>> <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/20 7:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:10 AM Alexandre Chartre
>>>>> <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/16/20 5:57 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:47 AM Alexandre Chartre
>>>>>>> <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When entering the kernel from userland, use the per-task PTI stack
>>>>>>>> instead of the per-cpu trampoline stack. Like the trampoline stack,
>>>>>>>> the PTI stack is mapped both in the kernel and in the user page-table.
>>>>>>>> Using a per-task stack which is mapped into the kernel and the user
>>>>>>>> page-table instead of a per-cpu stack will allow executing more code
>>>>>>>> before switching to the kernel stack and to the kernel page-table.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When executing more code in the kernel, we are likely to reach a point
>>>>>> where we need to sleep while we are using the user page-table, so we need
>>>>>> to be using a per-thread stack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't immediately evaluate how nasty the page table setup is because
>>>>>>> it's not in this patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The page-table is the regular page-table as introduced by PTI. It is just
>>>>>> augmented with a few additional mapping which are in patch 11 (x86/pti:
>>>>>> Extend PTI user mappings).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But AFAICS the only thing that this enables is sleeping with user pagetables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's precisely the point, it allows to sleep with the user page-table.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we really need to do that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, probably not with this particular patchset, because I do the page-table
>>>>>> switch at the very beginning and end of the C handler. I had some code where I
>>>>>> moved the page-table switch deeper in the kernel handler where you definitively
>>>>>> can sleep (for example, if you switch back to the user page-table before
>>>>>> exit_to_user_mode_prepare()).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a first step should probably be to not introduce the per-task PTI trampoline stack,
>>>>>> and stick with the existing trampoline stack. The per-task PTI trampoline stack can
>>>>>> be introduced later when the page-table switch is moved deeper in the C handler and
>>>>>> we can effectively sleep while using the user page-table.
>>>>>
>>>>> Seems reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I finally remember why I have introduced a per-task PTI trampoline stack right now:
>>>> that's to be able to move the CR3 switch anywhere in the C handler. To do so, we need
>>>> a per-task stack to enter (and return) from the C handler as the handler can potentially
>>>> go to sleep.
>>>>
>>>> Without a per-task trampoline stack, we would be limited to call the switch CR3 functions
>>>> from the assembly entry code before and after calling the C function handler (also called
>>>> from assembly).
>>>
>>> The noinstr part of the C entry code won't sleep.
>>>
>>
>> But the noinstr part of the handler can sleep, and if it does we will need to
>> preserve the trampoline stack (even if we switch to the per-task kernel stack to
>> execute the noinstr part).
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> #define DEFINE_IDTENTRY(func) \
>> static __always_inline void __##func(struct pt_regs *regs); \
>> \
>> __visible noinstr void func(struct pt_regs *regs) \
>> { \
>> irqentry_state_t state; -+ \
>> | \
>> user_pagetable_escape(regs); | use trampoline stack (1)
>> state = irqentry_enter(regs); | \
>> instrumentation_begin(); -+ \
>> run_idt(__##func, regs); |===| run __func() on kernel stack (this can sleep)
>> instrumentation_end(); -+ \
>> irqentry_exit(regs, state); | use trampoline stack (2)
>> user_pagetable_return(regs); -+ \
>> }
>>
>> Between (1) and (2) we need to preserve and use the same trampoline stack
>> in case __func() went sleeping.
>>
>
> Why? Right now, we have the percpu entry stack, and we do just fine
> if we enter on one percpu stack and exit from a different one.
>
> We would need to call from asm to C on the entry stack, return back to
> asm, and then switch stacks.
>
That's the problem: I didn't want to return back to asm, so that the pagetable
switch can be done anywhere in the C handler.
So yes, returning to asm to switch the stack is the solution if we want to avoid
having per-task trampoline stack. The drawback is that this forces to do the
page-table switch at the beginning and end of the handler; the pagetable switch
cannot be moved deeper down into the C handler.
But that's probably a good first step (effectively just moving CR3 switch to C
without adding per-task trampoline stack). I will update the patches to do that,
and we can defer the per-task trampoline stack to later if there's an effective
need for it.
alex.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-19 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 69+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-16 14:47 [RFC][PATCH v2 00/21] x86/pti: Defer CR3 switch to C code Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 01/21] x86/syscall: Add wrapper for invoking syscall function Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 02/21] x86/entry: Update asm_call_on_stack to support more function arguments Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 03/21] x86/entry: Consolidate IST entry from userspace Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 04/21] x86/sev-es: Define a setup stack function for the VC idtentry Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 05/21] x86/entry: Implement ret_from_fork body with C code Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 06/21] x86/pti: Provide C variants of PTI switch CR3 macros Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 07/21] x86/entry: Fill ESPFIX stack using C code Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 08/21] x86/pti: Introduce per-task PTI trampoline stack Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 09/21] x86/pti: Function to clone page-table entries from a specified mm Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 10/21] x86/pti: Function to map per-cpu page-table entry Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 11/21] x86/pti: Extend PTI user mappings Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 19:48 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-16 20:21 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 23:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-17 8:42 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-17 15:49 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-19 19:15 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 12/21] x86/pti: Use PTI stack instead of trampoline stack Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 16:57 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-16 18:10 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 18:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-16 19:37 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-17 15:09 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-17 15:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-17 17:01 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-19 1:49 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-19 8:05 ` Alexandre Chartre [this message]
2020-11-19 12:06 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-19 16:06 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-19 17:02 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 21:24 ` David Laight
2020-11-17 8:27 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-19 19:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-11-19 19:55 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-19 21:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-11-24 7:20 ` [x86/pti] 5da9e742d1: PANIC:double_fault kernel test robot
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 13/21] x86/pti: Execute syscall functions on the kernel stack Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 14/21] x86/pti: Execute IDT handlers " Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 15/21] x86/pti: Execute IDT handlers with error code " Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 16/21] x86/pti: Execute system vector handlers " Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 17/21] x86/pti: Execute page fault handler " Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 18/21] x86/pti: Execute NMI " Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 19/21] x86/pti: Defer CR3 switch to C code for IST entries Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 20/21] x86/pti: Defer CR3 switch to C code for non-IST and syscall entries Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 14:47 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 21/21] x86/pti: Use a different stack canary with the user and kernel page-table Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 16:56 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-11-16 18:34 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 20:17 ` [RFC][PATCH v2 00/21] x86/pti: Defer CR3 switch to C code Borislav Petkov
2020-11-17 7:56 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-17 16:55 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-11-17 18:12 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-17 18:28 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-11-17 19:02 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-17 21:23 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-11-18 7:08 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-17 21:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-11-18 7:41 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-18 9:30 ` David Laight
2020-11-18 10:29 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-18 13:22 ` David Laight
2020-11-18 17:15 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-18 11:29 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-11-18 19:37 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-16 20:24 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-11-17 8:19 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-17 17:07 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-11-17 18:24 ` Alexandre Chartre
2020-11-19 19:32 ` Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2f6a446a-e656-627c-27f2-8411f318448c@oracle.com \
--to=alexandre.chartre@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=graf@amazon.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jan.setjeeilers@oracle.com \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=junaids@google.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=kuzuno@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mgross@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oweisse@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).