From: Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@gmail.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:19:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAObL_7EJi5+m-oDXRy4hu+-OTZ=9wZ9WEivTMsdDtccU00wfWA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1398120472-6190-1-git-send-email-hpa@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 3:47 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> This is a prototype of espfix for the 64-bit kernel. espfix is a
> workaround for the architectural definition of IRET, which fails to
> restore bits [31:16] of %esp when returning to a 16-bit stack
> segment. We have a workaround for the 32-bit kernel, but that
> implementation doesn't work for 64 bits.
>
> The 64-bit implementation works like this:
>
> Set up a ministack for each CPU, which is then mapped 65536 times
> using the page tables. This implementation uses the second-to-last
> PGD slot for this; with a 64-byte espfix stack this is sufficient for
> 2^18 CPUs (currently we support a max of 2^13 CPUs.)
>
> 64 bytes appear to be sufficient, because NMI and #MC cause a task
> switch.
>
> THIS IS A PROTOTYPE AND IS NOT COMPLETE. We need to make sure all
> code paths that can interrupt userspace execute this code.
> Fortunately we never need to use the espfix stack for nested faults,
> so one per CPU is guaranteed to be safe.
>
> Furthermore, this code adds unnecessary instructions to the common
> path. For example, on exception entry we push %rdi, pop %rdi, and
> then save away %rdi. Ideally we should do this in such a way that we
> avoid unnecessary swapgs, especially on the IRET path (the exception
> path is going to be very rare, and so is less critical.)
>
> Putting this version out there for people to look at/laugh at/play
> with.
Hahaha! :)
Some comments:
Does returning to 64-bit CS with 16-bit SS not need espfix?
Conversely, does 16-bit CS and 32-bit SS need espfix?
> @@ -1058,6 +1095,7 @@ bad_iret:
> * So pretend we completed the iret and took the #GPF in user mode.
> *
> * We are now running with the kernel GS after exception recovery.
> + * Exception entry will have removed us from the espfix stack.
> * But error_entry expects us to have user GS to match the user %cs,
> * so swap back.
> */
What is that referring to?
> + /*
> + * Switch from the espfix stack to the proper stack: tricky stuff.
> + * On the stack right now is 5 words of exception frame,
> + * error code/oldeax, RDI, and the return value, so no additional
> + * stack is available.
> + *
> + * We will always be using the user space GS on entry.
> + */
> +ENTRY(espfix_fix_stack)
> + SWAPGS
> + cld
> + movq PER_CPU_VAR(kernel_stack),%rdi
> + subq $8*8,%rdi
> + /* Use the real stack to hold these registers for now */
> + movq %rsi,-8(%rdi)
> + movq %rcx,-16(%rdi)
> + movq %rsp,%rsi
> + movl $8,%ecx
> + rep;movsq
> + leaq -(10*8)(%rdi),%rsp
> + popq %rcx
> + popq %rsi
> + SWAPGS
> + retq
>
Is it guaranteed that the userspace thread that caused this is dead?
If not, do you need to change RIP so that espfix gets invoked again
when you return from the exception?
> +
> +void init_espfix_cpu(void)
> +{
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + unsigned long addr;
> + pgd_t pgd, *pgd_p;
> + pud_t pud, *pud_p;
> + pmd_t pmd, *pmd_p;
> + pte_t pte, *pte_p;
> + int n;
> + void *stack_page;
> +
> + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + BUG_ON(cpu >= (8 << 20)/ESPFIX_STACK_SIZE);
> +
> + /* We only have to do this once... */
> + if (likely(this_cpu_read(espfix_stack)))
> + return; /* Already initialized */
> +
> + addr = espfix_base_addr(cpu);
> +
> + /* Did another CPU already set this up? */
> + if (likely(espfix_already_there(addr)))
> + goto done;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&espfix_init_mutex);
> +
> + if (unlikely(espfix_already_there(addr)))
> + goto unlock_done;
Wouldn't it be simpler to just have a single static bool to indicate
whether espfix is initialized?
Even better: why not separate the percpu init from the pagetable init
and just do the pagetable init once from main or even modify_ldt?
--Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-21 23:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 136+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-11 17:36 [tip:x86/urgent] x86-64, modify_ldt: Ban 16-bit segments on 64-bit kernels tip-bot for H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-11 18:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-04-11 18:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-11 18:27 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-11 18:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-11 18:35 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-11 21:16 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-04-11 21:24 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-11 21:53 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-04-11 21:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-11 22:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-04-11 22:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-13 4:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-12 23:26 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2014-04-12 23:31 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-12 23:49 ` Alexander van Heukelum
2014-04-13 0:03 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-13 1:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-04-13 1:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-04-13 3:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-11 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-11 18:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-11 18:45 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-11 18:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-12 4:44 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-12 17:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-12 19:35 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-12 19:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-12 20:11 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-12 20:34 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-12 20:59 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-12 21:13 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-12 21:40 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-14 7:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-14 9:44 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-14 9:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-12 21:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-12 22:25 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-13 2:56 ` Andi Kleen
2014-04-13 3:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-13 3:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-12 20:29 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-14 7:48 ` Alexandre Julliard
2014-05-07 9:18 ` Sven Joachim
2014-05-07 10:18 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-05-07 16:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-05-07 17:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-07 17:50 ` Alexandre Julliard
2014-05-08 6:43 ` Sven Joachim
2014-05-08 13:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-08 20:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-08 20:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-12 13:16 ` Josh Boyer
2014-05-12 16:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-14 23:43 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86-64, modify_ldt: Make support for 16-bit segments a runtime option tip-bot for Linus Torvalds
2014-04-11 18:46 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86-64, modify_ldt: Ban 16-bit segments on 64-bit kernels H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-14 7:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-14 15:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-13 2:54 ` Andi Kleen
2014-04-21 22:47 ` [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE* H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-21 23:19 ` Andrew Lutomirski [this message]
2014-04-21 23:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 0:37 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 0:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 1:06 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 1:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 1:28 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 1:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 1:53 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 11:23 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-22 14:46 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-22 16:03 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 16:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 16:33 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 16:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-22 17:00 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 17:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-22 17:11 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 17:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-23 9:54 ` One Thousand Gnomes
2014-04-23 15:53 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-23 17:08 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-23 17:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-23 17:25 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-23 17:28 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-23 17:45 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 17:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-22 17:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 17:46 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 17:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 18:03 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-22 18:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 18:17 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-22 18:51 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 19:55 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-22 20:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 23:08 ` Brian Gerst
2014-04-22 23:39 ` Andi Kleen
2014-04-22 23:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 17:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 17:26 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-22 17:29 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 19:27 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-23 6:24 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-23 8:57 ` Alexandre Julliard
2014-04-22 17:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 17:20 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-22 17:24 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-22 11:25 ` Borislav Petkov
2014-04-23 1:17 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-23 1:23 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-23 1:42 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-23 14:24 ` Boris Ostrovsky
2014-04-23 16:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-28 13:04 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-04-25 21:02 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-04-25 21:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-24 4:13 ` comex
2014-04-24 4:53 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-24 22:24 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-24 22:31 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-24 22:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-24 22:43 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-28 23:05 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-28 23:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-29 0:02 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-29 0:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-29 0:20 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2014-04-29 2:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-29 2:44 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-29 3:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-29 3:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-29 4:36 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-29 7:14 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-04-25 12:02 ` Pavel Machek
2014-04-25 21:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
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='CAObL_7EJi5+m-oDXRy4hu+-OTZ=9wZ9WEivTMsdDtccU00wfWA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=amluto@gmail.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com \
--cc=boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=heukelum@fastmail.fm \
--cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=julliard@winehq.com \
--cc=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).