From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Jane Malalane <jane.malalane@citrix.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Pu Wen <puwen@hygon.cn>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
Yazen Ghannam <Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com>,
Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
Huang Rui <ray.huang@amd.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@amd.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/cpu: Fix migration safety with X86_BUG_NULL_SEL
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 20:17:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YW25x7AYiM1f1HQA@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211013142230.10129-1-jane.malalane@citrix.com>
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 03:22:30PM +0100, Jane Malalane wrote:
> @@ -650,6 +651,27 @@ static void early_init_amd(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> if (c->x86_power & BIT(14))
> set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_RAPL);
>
> + /*
> + * Zen1 and earlier CPUs don't clear segment base/limits when
> + * loading a NULL selector. This has been designated
> + * X86_BUG_NULL_SEG.
> + *
> + * Zen3 CPUs advertise Null Selector Clears Base in CPUID.
> + * Zen2 CPUs also have this behaviour, but no CPUID bit.
> + *
> + * A hypervisor may sythesize the bit, but may also hide it
> + * for migration safety, so we must not probe for model
> + * specific behaviour when virtualised.
> + */
> + if (c->extended_cpuid_level >= 0x80000021 && cpuid_eax(0x80000021) & BIT(6))
> + nscb = true;
> +
> + if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR) && !nscb && c->x86 == 0x17)
> + nscb = check_null_seg_clears_base(c);
> +
> + if (!nscb)
> + set_cpu_bug(c, X86_BUG_NULL_SEG);
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_SYSCALL32);
> #else
Can we do something like this?
It is carved out into a separate function which you can simply call from
early_init_amd() and early_init_hygon().
I guess you can put that function in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c or so.
Then, you should put the comments right over the code like I've done
below so that one can follow what's going on with each particular check.
I've also flipped the logic a bit and it is simpler this way.
Totally untested of course.
static void early_probe_null_seg_clearing_base(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
/*
* A hypervisor may sythesize the bit, but may also hide it
* for migration safety, so do not probe for model-specific
* behaviour when virtualised.
*/
if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR))
return;
/* Zen3 CPUs advertise Null Selector Clears Base in CPUID. */
if (c->extended_cpuid_level >= 0x80000021 && cpuid_eax(0x80000021) & BIT(6))
return;
/* Zen2 CPUs also have this behaviour, but no CPUID bit. */
if (c->x86 == 0x17 && check_null_seg_clears_base(c))
return;
/* All the remaining ones are affected */
set_cpu_bug(c, X86_BUG_NULL_SEG);
}
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> index 0f8885949e8c..2ca4afb97247 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> @@ -1395,7 +1395,7 @@ void __init early_cpu_init(void)
> early_identify_cpu(&boot_cpu_data);
> }
>
> -static void detect_null_seg_behavior(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> +bool check_null_seg_clears_base(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> /*
> @@ -1418,10 +1418,10 @@ static void detect_null_seg_behavior(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> wrmsrl(MSR_FS_BASE, 1);
> loadsegment(fs, 0);
> rdmsrl(MSR_FS_BASE, tmp);
> - if (tmp != 0)
> - set_cpu_bug(c, X86_BUG_NULL_SEG);
> wrmsrl(MSR_FS_BASE, old_base);
> + return tmp == 0;
> #endif
> + return true;
> }
>
> static void generic_identify(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> @@ -1457,8 +1457,6 @@ static void generic_identify(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>
> get_model_name(c); /* Default name */
>
> - detect_null_seg_behavior(c);
> -
> /*
> * ESPFIX is a strange bug. All real CPUs have it. Paravirt
> * systems that run Linux at CPL > 0 may or may not have the
So this function is called on all x86 CPUs. Are you sure others besides
AMD and Hygon do not have the same issue?
IOW, I wouldn't remove that call here.
But then this is the identify() phase in the boot process and you've
moved it to early_identify() by putting it in the ->c_early_init()
function pointer on AMD and Hygon.
Is there any particular reasoning for this or can that detection remain
in ->c_identify()?
Because if this null seg behavior detection should happen on all
CPUs - and I think it should, because, well, it has been that way
until now - then the vendor specific identification minus what
detect_null_seg_behavior() does should run first and then after
->c_identify() is done, you should do something like:
if (!cpu_has_bug(c, X86_BUG_NULL_SEG)) {
if (!check_null_seg_clears_base(c))
set_cpu_bug(c, X86_BUG_NULL_SEG);
}
so that it still takes place on all CPUs.
I.e., you should split the detection.
I hope I'm making sense ...
Ah, btw, that @c parameter to detect_null_seg_behavior() is unused - you
should remove it in a pre-patch.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-18 18:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-13 14:22 [PATCH v2] x86/cpu: Fix migration safety with X86_BUG_NULL_SEL Jane Malalane
2021-10-13 16:46 ` Greg KH
2021-10-18 18:17 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2021-10-18 19:10 ` H. Peter Anvin
2021-10-18 19:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-10-18 19:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-18 19:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-10-18 20:05 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-10-18 20:18 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-10-18 20:06 ` Andrew Cooper
2021-10-18 21:46 ` Borislav Petkov
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=YW25x7AYiM1f1HQA@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=Yazen.Ghannam@amd.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=brijesh.singh@amd.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jane.malalane@citrix.com \
--cc=kim.phillips@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=puwen@hygon.cn \
--cc=ray.huang@amd.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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