Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 03/13] task_isolation: add instruction synchronization memory barrier

Will Deacon
2020-04-21T07:41:09Z

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 02:55:23PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:36:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 01:23:51PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > IIUC, we don't need to do anything on arm64 because taking an exception acts
> > > as a context synchronization event, so I don't think you should try to
> > > expose this as a new barrier macro. Instead, just make it a pre-requisite
> > > that architectures need to ensure this behaviour when entering the kernel
> > > from userspace if they are to select HAVE_ARCH_TASK_ISOLATION.
> >
> > The CSE from the exception isn't sufficient here, because it needs to
> > occur after the CPU has re-registered to receive IPIs for
> > kick_all_cpus_sync(). Otherwise there's a window between taking the
> > exception and re-registering where a necessary context synchronization
> > event can be missed. e.g.
> >
> > CPU A CPU B
> > [ Modifies some code ]
> > [ enters exception ]
> > [ D cache maintenance ]
> > [ I cache maintenance ]
> > [ IPI ] // IPI not taken
> > ... [ register for IPI ]
> > [ IPI completes ]
> > [ execute stale code here ]
>
> Thanks.
>
> > However, I think 'IMB' is far too generic, and we should have an arch
> > hook specific to task isolation, as it's far less likely to be abused as
> > IMB will.
>
> What guarantees we don't run any unsynchronised module code between
> exception entry and registering for the IPI? It seems like we'd want that
> code to run as early as possible, e.g. as part of
> task_isolation_user_exit() but that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

Sorry, I guess that's more a question for Alex.

Alex -- do you think we could move the "register for IPI" step earlier
so that it's easier to reason about the code that runs in the dead zone
during exception entry?

Will