Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
	Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@mellanox.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Chen Yucong <slaoub@gmail.com>,
	Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.org>,
	Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
	"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org, wine-devel@winehq.org
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 00:37:19 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ddcf5ab1-31e4-8f64-ca75-179a6934bcb2@list.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWwLD-Jgaz2v5HH9LSmUNrzCBT=Y3xvA-FrXU2ib9_s-w@mail.gmail.com>

11.03.2017 00:04, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Stas Sergeev <stsp@list.ru> wrote:
>> 10.03.2017 05:41, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Ricardo Neri
>>> <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 19:53 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>>>>> 08.03.2017 19:46, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>>>>> No no, since I meant prot mode, this is not what I need.
>>>>>>> I would never need to disable UMIP as to allow the
>>>>>>> prot mode apps to do SLDT. Instead it would be good
>>>>>>> to have an ability to provide a replacement for the dummy
>>>>>>> emulation that is currently being proposed for kernel.
>>>>>>> All is needed for this, is just to deliver a SIGSEGV.
>>>>>> That's what I meant.  Turning off FIXUP_UMIP would leave UMIP on but
>>>>>> turn off the fixup, so you'd get a SIGSEGV indicating #GP (or a vm86
>>>>>> GP exit).
>>>>> But then I am confused with the word "compat" in
>>>>> your "COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP_FIXUP" and
>>>>> "sys_adjust_compat_mask(int op, int word, u32 mask);"
>>>>>
>>>>> Leaving UMIP on and only disabling a fixup doesn't
>>>>> sound like a compat option to me. I would expect
>>>>> compat to disable it completely.
>>>> I guess that the _UMIP_FIXUP part makes it clear that emulation, not
>>>> UMIP is disabled, allowing the SIGSEGV be delivered to the user space
>>>> program.
>>>>
>>>> Would having a COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP_FIXUP to disable emulation and a
>>>> COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP to disable UMIP make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Also, wouldn't having a COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP to disable UMIP defeat its
>>>> purpose? Applications could simply use this compat mask to bypass UMIP
>>>> and gain access to the instructions it protects.
>>>>
>>> I was obviously extremely unclear.  The point of the proposed syscall
>>> is to let programs opt out of legacy features.
>> I guess both "compat" and "legacy" are misleading
>> here. Maybe these are "x86-specific" or "hypervisor-specific",
>> but a mere enabling of UMIP doesn't immediately make
>> the use of SLDT instruction a legacy IMHO.
> Sure it is. :)  Using SLDT from user mode is a legacy ability that
> just happens to still work on existing CPUs and kernels.  Once UMIP
> goes in, it will officially be obsolete
Yes, but the names you suggest, imply that "UMIP_FIXUP"
is legacy or compat, which I find misleading because it have
just appeared. Maybe something like "COMPAT_X86_UMIP_INSNS_EMU"?