Re: [PATCH stable 5.4,5.10] x86/fpu: Correct pkru/xstate inconsistency

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 04:32:48PM -0500, Brian Geffon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 2:45 PM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 11:22:33AM -0800, Brian Geffon wrote:
> > > When eagerly switching PKRU in switch_fpu_finish() it checks that
> > > current is not a kernel thread as kernel threads will never use PKRU.
> > > It's possible that this_cpu_read_stable() on current_task
> > > (ie. get_current()) is returning an old cached value. To resolve this
> > > reference next_p directly rather than relying on current.
> > >
> > > As written it's possible when switching from a kernel thread to a
> > > userspace thread to observe a cached PF_KTHREAD flag and never restore
> > > the PKRU. And as a result this issue only occurs when switching
> > > from a kernel thread to a userspace thread, switching from a non kernel
> > > thread works perfectly fine because all that is considered in that
> > > situation are the flags from some other non kernel task and the next fpu
> > > is passed in to switch_fpu_finish().
> > >
> > > This behavior only exists between 5.2 and 5.13 when it was fixed by a
> > > rewrite decoupling PKRU from xstate, in:
> > >   commit 954436989cc5 ("x86/fpu: Remove PKRU handling from switch_fpu_finish()")
> > >
> > > Unfortunately backporting the fix from 5.13 is probably not realistic as
> > > it's part of a 60+ patch series which rewrites most of the PKRU handling.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 0cecca9d03c9 ("x86/fpu: Eager switch PKRU state")
> > > Signed-off-by: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@google.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Willis Kung <williskung@google.com>
> > > Tested-by: Willis Kung <williskung@google.com>
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.4.x
> > > Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v5.10.x
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h | 13 ++++++++-----
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c        |  6 ++----
> > >  arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c        |  6 ++----
> > >  3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > So this is ONLY for 5.4.y and 5.10.y?  I'm really really loath to take
> > non-upstream changes as 95% of the time (really) it goes wrong.
> 
> That's correct, this bug was introduced in 5.2 and that code was
> completely refactored in 5.13 indirectly fixing it.

What series of commits contain that work?

And again, why not just take them?  What is wrong with that if this is
such a big issue?

> > How was this tested, and what do the maintainers of this subsystem
> > think?  And will you be around to fix the bugs in this when they are
> > found?
> 
> This has been trivial to reproduce, I've used a small repro which I've
> put here: https://gist.github.com/bgaff/9f8cbfc8dd22e60f9492e4f0aff8f04f
> , I also was able to reproduce this using the protection_keys self
> tests on a 11th Gen Core i5-1135G7. I'm happy to commit to addressing
> any bugs that may appear. I'll see what the maintainers say, but there
> is also a smaller fix that just involves using this_cpu_read() in
> switch_fpu_finish() for this specific issue, although that approach
> isn't as clean.

Can you add the test to the in-kernel tests so that we make sure it is
fixed and never comes back?

thanks,

greg k-h