* [PATCH 4.9 18/22] x86/fpu: Disable bottom halves while loading FPU registers [not found] <20181228113126.144310132@linuxfoundation.org> @ 2018-12-28 11:52 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-07-24 17:07 ` Jan Kiszka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2018-12-28 11:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, stable, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, Borislav Petkov, Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner, Andy Lutomirski, Dave Hansen, H. Peter Anvin, Jason A. Donenfeld, kvm ML, Paolo Bonzini, Radim Krčmář, Rik van Riel, x86-ml 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> commit 68239654acafe6aad5a3c1dc7237e60accfebc03 upstream. The sequence fpu->initialized = 1; /* step A */ preempt_disable(); /* step B */ fpu__restore(fpu); preempt_enable(); in __fpu__restore_sig() is racy in regard to a context switch. For 32bit frames, __fpu__restore_sig() prepares the FPU state within fpu->state. To ensure that a context switch (switch_fpu_prepare() in particular) does not modify fpu->state it uses fpu__drop() which sets fpu->initialized to 0. After fpu->initialized is cleared, the CPU's FPU state is not saved to fpu->state during a context switch. The new state is loaded via fpu__restore(). It gets loaded into fpu->state from userland and ensured it is sane. fpu->initialized is then set to 1 in order to avoid fpu__initialize() doing anything (overwrite the new state) which is part of fpu__restore(). A context switch between step A and B above would save CPU's current FPU registers to fpu->state and overwrite the newly prepared state. This looks like a tiny race window but the Kernel Test Robot reported this back in 2016 while we had lazy FPU support. Borislav Petkov made the link between that report and another patch that has been posted. Since the removal of the lazy FPU support, this race goes unnoticed because the warning has been removed. Disable bottom halves around the restore sequence to avoid the race. BH need to be disabled because BH is allowed to run (even with preemption disabled) and might invoke kernel_fpu_begin() by doing IPsec. [ bp: massage commit message a bit. ] Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> Cc: kvm ML <kvm@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181120102635.ddv3fvavxajjlfqk@linutronix.de Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160226074940.GA28911@pd.tnic Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> --- arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c @@ -342,10 +342,10 @@ static int __fpu__restore_sig(void __use sanitize_restored_xstate(tsk, &env, xfeatures, fx_only); } + local_bh_disable(); fpu->fpstate_active = 1; - preempt_disable(); fpu__restore(fpu); - preempt_enable(); + local_bh_enable(); return err; } else { ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4.9 18/22] x86/fpu: Disable bottom halves while loading FPU registers 2018-12-28 11:52 ` [PATCH 4.9 18/22] x86/fpu: Disable bottom halves while loading FPU registers Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2020-07-24 17:07 ` Jan Kiszka 2020-07-24 17:44 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Jan Kiszka @ 2020-07-24 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman, linux-kernel, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Cc: stable, Borislav Petkov, Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner, Andy Lutomirski, Dave Hansen, H. Peter Anvin, Jason A. Donenfeld, kvm ML, Paolo Bonzini, Radim Krčmář, Rik van Riel, x86-ml, cip-dev On 28.12.18 12:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > ------------------ > > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > commit 68239654acafe6aad5a3c1dc7237e60accfebc03 upstream. > > The sequence > > fpu->initialized = 1; /* step A */ > preempt_disable(); /* step B */ > fpu__restore(fpu); > preempt_enable(); > > in __fpu__restore_sig() is racy in regard to a context switch. > > For 32bit frames, __fpu__restore_sig() prepares the FPU state within > fpu->state. To ensure that a context switch (switch_fpu_prepare() in > particular) does not modify fpu->state it uses fpu__drop() which sets > fpu->initialized to 0. > > After fpu->initialized is cleared, the CPU's FPU state is not saved > to fpu->state during a context switch. The new state is loaded via > fpu__restore(). It gets loaded into fpu->state from userland and > ensured it is sane. fpu->initialized is then set to 1 in order to avoid > fpu__initialize() doing anything (overwrite the new state) which is part > of fpu__restore(). > > A context switch between step A and B above would save CPU's current FPU > registers to fpu->state and overwrite the newly prepared state. This > looks like a tiny race window but the Kernel Test Robot reported this > back in 2016 while we had lazy FPU support. Borislav Petkov made the > link between that report and another patch that has been posted. Since > the removal of the lazy FPU support, this race goes unnoticed because > the warning has been removed. > > Disable bottom halves around the restore sequence to avoid the race. BH > need to be disabled because BH is allowed to run (even with preemption > disabled) and might invoke kernel_fpu_begin() by doing IPsec. > > [ bp: massage commit message a bit. ] > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> > Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> > Cc: kvm ML <kvm@vger.kernel.org> > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> > Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> > Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181120102635.ddv3fvavxajjlfqk@linutronix.de > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160226074940.GA28911@pd.tnic > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c > @@ -342,10 +342,10 @@ static int __fpu__restore_sig(void __use > sanitize_restored_xstate(tsk, &env, xfeatures, fx_only); > } > > + local_bh_disable(); > fpu->fpstate_active = 1; > - preempt_disable(); > fpu__restore(fpu); > - preempt_enable(); > + local_bh_enable(); > > return err; > } else { > > Any reason why the backport stopped back than at 4.9? I just debugged this out of a 4.4 kernel, and it is needed there as well. I'm happy to propose a backport, would just appreciate a hint if the BH protection is needed also there (my case was without BH). Thanks, Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4.9 18/22] x86/fpu: Disable bottom halves while loading FPU registers 2020-07-24 17:07 ` Jan Kiszka @ 2020-07-24 17:44 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-07-24 18:12 ` Sasha Levin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2020-07-24 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Kiszka Cc: linux-kernel, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, stable, Borislav Petkov, Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner, Andy Lutomirski, Dave Hansen, H. Peter Anvin, Jason A. Donenfeld, kvm ML, Paolo Bonzini, Radim Krčmář, Rik van Riel, x86-ml, cip-dev On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 28.12.18 12:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > ------------------ > > > > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > > > commit 68239654acafe6aad5a3c1dc7237e60accfebc03 upstream. > > > > The sequence > > > > fpu->initialized = 1; /* step A */ > > preempt_disable(); /* step B */ > > fpu__restore(fpu); > > preempt_enable(); > > > > in __fpu__restore_sig() is racy in regard to a context switch. > > > > For 32bit frames, __fpu__restore_sig() prepares the FPU state within > > fpu->state. To ensure that a context switch (switch_fpu_prepare() in > > particular) does not modify fpu->state it uses fpu__drop() which sets > > fpu->initialized to 0. > > > > After fpu->initialized is cleared, the CPU's FPU state is not saved > > to fpu->state during a context switch. The new state is loaded via > > fpu__restore(). It gets loaded into fpu->state from userland and > > ensured it is sane. fpu->initialized is then set to 1 in order to avoid > > fpu__initialize() doing anything (overwrite the new state) which is part > > of fpu__restore(). > > > > A context switch between step A and B above would save CPU's current FPU > > registers to fpu->state and overwrite the newly prepared state. This > > looks like a tiny race window but the Kernel Test Robot reported this > > back in 2016 while we had lazy FPU support. Borislav Petkov made the > > link between that report and another patch that has been posted. Since > > the removal of the lazy FPU support, this race goes unnoticed because > > the warning has been removed. > > > > Disable bottom halves around the restore sequence to avoid the race. BH > > need to be disabled because BH is allowed to run (even with preemption > > disabled) and might invoke kernel_fpu_begin() by doing IPsec. > > > > [ bp: massage commit message a bit. ] > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> > > Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> > > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> > > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> > > Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> > > Cc: kvm ML <kvm@vger.kernel.org> > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> > > Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> > > Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org> > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181120102635.ddv3fvavxajjlfqk@linutronix.de > > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160226074940.GA28911@pd.tnic > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> > > --- > > arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c > > @@ -342,10 +342,10 @@ static int __fpu__restore_sig(void __use > > sanitize_restored_xstate(tsk, &env, xfeatures, fx_only); > > } > > + local_bh_disable(); > > fpu->fpstate_active = 1; > > - preempt_disable(); > > fpu__restore(fpu); > > - preempt_enable(); > > + local_bh_enable(); > > return err; > > } else { > > > > > > Any reason why the backport stopped back than at 4.9? I just debugged this > out of a 4.4 kernel, and it is needed there as well. I'm happy to propose a > backport, would just appreciate a hint if the BH protection is needed also > there (my case was without BH). You are asking about something we did back in 2018. I can't remember what I did last week :) If you provide a backport that works, I'll be glad to take it. The current patch does not apply cleanly there at all. thanks, greg k-h ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 4.9 18/22] x86/fpu: Disable bottom halves while loading FPU registers 2020-07-24 17:44 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2020-07-24 18:12 ` Sasha Levin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Sasha Levin @ 2020-07-24 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Jan Kiszka, linux-kernel, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior, stable, Borislav Petkov, Ingo Molnar, Thomas Gleixner, Andy Lutomirski, Dave Hansen, H. Peter Anvin, Jason A. Donenfeld, kvm ML, Paolo Bonzini, Radim Krčmář, Rik van Riel, x86-ml, cip-dev On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 07:44:37PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 28.12.18 12:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. >> > >> > ------------------ >> > >> > From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> >> > >> > commit 68239654acafe6aad5a3c1dc7237e60accfebc03 upstream. >> > >> > The sequence >> > >> > fpu->initialized = 1; /* step A */ >> > preempt_disable(); /* step B */ >> > fpu__restore(fpu); >> > preempt_enable(); >> > >> > in __fpu__restore_sig() is racy in regard to a context switch. >> > >> > For 32bit frames, __fpu__restore_sig() prepares the FPU state within >> > fpu->state. To ensure that a context switch (switch_fpu_prepare() in >> > particular) does not modify fpu->state it uses fpu__drop() which sets >> > fpu->initialized to 0. >> > >> > After fpu->initialized is cleared, the CPU's FPU state is not saved >> > to fpu->state during a context switch. The new state is loaded via >> > fpu__restore(). It gets loaded into fpu->state from userland and >> > ensured it is sane. fpu->initialized is then set to 1 in order to avoid >> > fpu__initialize() doing anything (overwrite the new state) which is part >> > of fpu__restore(). >> > >> > A context switch between step A and B above would save CPU's current FPU >> > registers to fpu->state and overwrite the newly prepared state. This >> > looks like a tiny race window but the Kernel Test Robot reported this >> > back in 2016 while we had lazy FPU support. Borislav Petkov made the >> > link between that report and another patch that has been posted. Since >> > the removal of the lazy FPU support, this race goes unnoticed because >> > the warning has been removed. >> > >> > Disable bottom halves around the restore sequence to avoid the race. BH >> > need to be disabled because BH is allowed to run (even with preemption >> > disabled) and might invoke kernel_fpu_begin() by doing IPsec. >> > >> > [ bp: massage commit message a bit. ] >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> >> > Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> >> > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> >> > Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> >> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> >> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> >> > Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> >> > Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com> >> > Cc: kvm ML <kvm@vger.kernel.org> >> > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> >> > Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> >> > Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> >> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org >> > Cc: x86-ml <x86@kernel.org> >> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181120102635.ddv3fvavxajjlfqk@linutronix.de >> > Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160226074940.GA28911@pd.tnic >> > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> >> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> >> > --- >> > arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c | 4 ++-- >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c >> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/fpu/signal.c >> > @@ -342,10 +342,10 @@ static int __fpu__restore_sig(void __use >> > sanitize_restored_xstate(tsk, &env, xfeatures, fx_only); >> > } >> > + local_bh_disable(); >> > fpu->fpstate_active = 1; >> > - preempt_disable(); >> > fpu__restore(fpu); >> > - preempt_enable(); >> > + local_bh_enable(); >> > return err; >> > } else { >> > >> > >> >> Any reason why the backport stopped back than at 4.9? I just debugged this >> out of a 4.4 kernel, and it is needed there as well. I'm happy to propose a >> backport, would just appreciate a hint if the BH protection is needed also >> there (my case was without BH). > >You are asking about something we did back in 2018. I can't remember >what I did last week :) > >If you provide a backport that works, I'll be glad to take it. The >current patch does not apply cleanly there at all. The conflict was due to a missing rename back in 4.4: e4a81bfcaae1 ("x86/fpu: Rename fpu::fpstate_active to fpu::initialized"). I've fixed up the patch and queued it for 4.4, thanks for pointing it out Jan! -- Thanks, Sasha ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-07-24 18:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20181228113126.144310132@linuxfoundation.org>
2018-12-28 11:52 ` [PATCH 4.9 18/22] x86/fpu: Disable bottom halves while loading FPU registers Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-07-24 17:07 ` Jan Kiszka
2020-07-24 17:44 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-07-24 18:12 ` Sasha Levin
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox