Re: selftests/x86/fsgsbase_64 test problem

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Dan Rue <dan.rue@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We've noticed that fsgsbase_64 can fail intermittently with the
>>>> following error:
>>>>
>>>>         [RUN]   ARCH_SET_GS(0x0) and clear gs, then schedule to 0x1
>>>>                 Before schedule, set selector to 0x1
>>>>                 other thread: ARCH_SET_GS(0x1) -- sel is 0x0
>>>>         [FAIL]  GS/BASE changed from 0x1/0x0 to 0x0/0x0
>>>>
>>>> This can be reliably reproduced by running fsgsbase_64 in a loop. i.e.
>>>>
>>>>     for i in $(seq 1 10000); do ./fsgsbase_64 || break; done
>>>>
>>>> This problem isn't new - I've reproduced it on latest mainline and every
>>>> release going back to v4.12 (I did not try earlier). This was tested on
>>>> a Supermicro board with a Xeon E3-1220 as well as an Intel Nuc with an
>>>> i3-5010U.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, I can reproduce it, too.  I'll look in a bit.
>>
>> I'm triggering a different error, and I think what's going on is that
>> the kernel doesn't currently re-save GSBASE when a task switches out
>> and that task has save gsbase != 0 and in-register GS == 0.  This is
>> arguably a bug, but it's not an infoleak, and fixing it could be a wee
>> bit expensive.  I'm not sure what, if anything, to do about this.  I
>> suppose I could add some gross perf hackery to the test to detect this
>> case and suppress the error.
>>
>> I can also trigger the problem you're seeing, and I don't know what's
>> up.  It may be related to and old problem I've seen that causes signal
>> delivery to sometimes corrupt %gs.  It's deterministic, but it depends
>> in some odd way on register state.  I can currently reproduce that
>> issue 100% of the time, and I'm trying to see if I can figure out
>> what's happening.
>
> I think it's a CPU bug, and I'm a bit mystified.  I can trigger the
> following, plausibly related issue:
>
> Write a program that writes %gs = 1.
> Run that program under gdb
> break in which %gs == 1
> display/x $gs
> si
>
> Under QEMU TCG, gs stays equal to 1.  On native or KVM, on Skylake, it
> changes to 0.
>
> On KVM or native, I do not observe do_debug getting called with %gs ==
> 1.  On TCG, I do.  I don't think that's precisely the problem that's
> causing the test to fail, since the test doesn't use TF or ptrace, but
> I wouldn't be shocked if it's related.
>
> hpa, any insight?
>
> (NB: if you want to play with this as I've described it, you may need
> to make invalid_selector() in ptrace.c always return false.  The
> current implementation is too strict and causes problems.)

Much simpler test.  Run the attached program (gs1).  It more or less
just sets %gs to 1 and spins until it stops being 1.  Do it on a
kernel with the attached patch applied.  I see stuff like this:

# ./gs1
PID = 129
[   15.703015] pid 129 saved gs = 1
[   15.703517] pid 129 loaded gs = 1
[   15.703973] pid 129 prepare_exit_to_usermode: gs = 1
ax = 0, cx = 0, dx = 0

So we're interrupting the program, switching out, switching back in,
setting %gs to 1, observing that %gs is *still* 1 in
prepare_exit_to_usermode(), returning to usermode, and observing %gs
== 0.

Presumably what's happening is that the IRET microcode matches the
SDM's pseudocode, which says:

RETURN-TO-OUTER-PRIVILEGE-LEVEL:
...
FOR each SegReg in (ES, FS, GS, and DS)
  DO
    tempDesc â descriptor cache for SegReg (* hidden part of segment register *)
    IF tempDesc(DPL) < CPL AND tempDesc(Type) is data or non-conforming code
    THEN (* Segment register invalid *)
      SegReg â NULL;
    FI;
  OD;

But this is very odd.  The actual permission checks (in the docs for MOV) are:

IF DS, ES, FS, or GS is loaded with non-NULL selector
THEN
  IF segment selector index is outside descriptor table limits
  or segment is not a data or readable code segment
  or ((segment is a data or nonconforming code segment)
  or ((RPL > DPL) and (CPL > DPL))
    THEN #GP(selector); FI;

^^^^
This makes no sense.  This says that the data segments cannot be
loaded with MOV.  Empirically, it seems like MOV works if CPL <= DPL
and RPL <= DPL, but I haven't checked that hard.

  IF segment not marked present
    THEN #NP(selector);
  ELSE
    SegmentRegister â segment selector;
    SegmentRegister â segment descriptor; FI;
  FI;

  IF DS, ES, FS, or GS is loaded with NULL selector
  THEN
    SegmentRegister â segment selector;
    SegmentRegister â segment descriptor;
    ^^^^
    wtf?  There is no "segment descriptor".  Presumably what actually
gets written to segment.DPL is nonsense.
  FI;

Anyway, I think it's nonsense that user code can load a selector using
MOV that is, in turn, rejected by IRET.  I don't suppose Intel would
consider fixing this going forward.

Borislav, any chance you could run the attached program on an AMD
machine to see what it does?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>

int main()
{
	unsigned short ax, cx, dx;
	printf("PID = %d\n", (int)getpid());
	asm volatile ("mov %[one], %%gs\n\t"
		      "1:\n\t"
		      "mov %%gs, %%eax\n\t"
		      "mov %%gs, %%ecx\n\t"
		      "mov %%gs, %%edx\n\t"
		      "cmpw $1, %%ax\n\tjne 2f\n\t"
		      "cmpw $1, %%cx\n\tjne 2f\n\t"
		      "cmpw $1, %%dx\n\tjne 2f\n\t"
		      "jmp 1b\n\t"
		      "2:"
		      : "=a" (ax), "=c" (cx), "=d" (dx)
		      : [one] "rm" ((unsigned short)1));
	printf("ax = %hx, cx = %hx, dx = %hx\n", ax, cx, dx);
	return 0;
}