Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] x86/ldt: refresh %fs and %gs in refresh_ldt_segments()

[hpa]

On June 27, 2018 11:22:14 AM PDT, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>On June 27, 2018 11:19:12 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>>On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Andy Lutomirski
><luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 22, 2018, at 11:29 AM, H. Peter Anvin
>><h.peter.anvin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/22/18 07:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That RPL3 part is false.  The following program does:
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    unsigned short sel;
>>>>>    asm volatile ("mov %%ss, %0" : "=rm" (sel));
>>>>>    sel &= ~3;
>>>>>    printf("Will write 0x%hx to GS\n", sel);
>>>>>    asm volatile ("mov %0, %%gs" :: "rm" (sel & ~3));
>>>>>    asm volatile ("mov %%gs, %0" : "=rm" (sel));
>>>>>    printf("GS = 0x%hx\n", sel);
>>>>>    return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> prints:
>>>>>
>>>>> Will write 0x28 to GS
>>>>> GS = 0x28
>>>>>
>>>>> The x86 architecture is *insane*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than that, this patch seems generally sensible.  But my
>>>>> objection that it's incorrect with FSGSBASE enabled for %fs and
>%gs
>>>>> still applies.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ugh, you're right... I misremembered.  The CPL simply overrides the
>>RPL
>>>> rather than trapping.
>>>>
>>>> We still need to give legacy applications which have zero idea
>about
>>the
>>>> separate bases that apply only to 64-bit mode a way to DTRT. 
>>Requiring
>>>> these old crufty applications to do something new is not an option.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As ugly as it is, I'm thinking the Right Thing is to simply make it
>>a
>>>> part of the Linux ABI that if the FS or GS selector registers point
>>into
>>>> the LDT then we will requalify them; if a 64-bit app does that then
>>they
>>>> get that behavior.  This isn't something that will happen
>>>> asynchronously, and if a 64-bit process loads an LDT value into FS
>>or
>>>> GS, they are considered to have opted in to that behavior.
>>>
>>> But the old and crusty apps donât depend on requalification because
>>we never used to do it.
>>>
>>> Iâm not convinced we ever need to refresh the base. In fact, we
>could
>>start preserving the base of LDT-referencing FS/GS across context
>>switches even without FSGSBASE at some minor performance cost, but I
>>donât really see the point. I still think my proposed semantics are
>>easy to implement and preserve the ABI even if they have the sad
>>property that the FSGSBASE behavior and the non-FSGSBASE behavior end
>>up different.
>>>
>>
>>There's another reasonable solution: do exactly what your patch does,
>>minus the bugs.  We would need to get the RPL != 3 case right (easy)
>>and the case where there's a non-running thread using the selector in
>>question.  The latter is probably best handled by adding a flag to
>>thread_struct that says "fsbase needs reloading from the descriptor
>>table" and only applies if the selector is in the LDT or TLS area.  Or
>>we could hijack a high bit in the selector.  Then we'd need to update
>>everything that uses the fields.
>
>Obviously fix the bugs.
>
>How would you control this bit?

I can personally think of these options:

1. A prctl() to disable requalification;
2. Make the new instructions trap until used.  This will add to the startup time of legitimate users of these instructions;
3. Either of these, but start out in "off" mode until one of the descriptor table system calls are called.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.