[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/fpu/xstate: Invalidate fpregs when __fpu_restore_sig() fails
On 2019-12-12 13:08:55 [-0800], Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> In __fpu_restore_sig(),'init_fpstate.xsave' and part of 'fpu->state.xsave'
> are restored separately to xregs. However, as stated in __cpu_invalidate_
> fpregs_state(),
> Any code that clobbers the FPU registers or updates the in-memory
> FPU state for a task MUST let the rest of the kernel know that the
> FPU registers are no longer valid for this task.
> and this code violates that rule. Should the restoration fail, the other
> task's context is corrupted.
> This problem does not occur very often because copy_*_to_xregs() succeeds
> most of the time.

why "most of the time"? It should always succeed. We talk here about
__fpu__restore_sig() correct? Using init_fpstate as part of restore
process isn't the "default" case. If the restore _here_ fails then it

> It occurs, for instance, in copy_user_to_fpregs_
> zeroing() when the first half of the restoration succeeds and the other
> half fails. This can be triggered by running glibc tests, where a non-
> present user stack page causes the XRSTOR to fail.

So if copy_user_to_fpregs_zeroing() fails then we go to the slowpath.
Then we load the FPU register with copy_kernel_to_xregs_err().
In the end they are either enabled (fpregs_mark_activate()) or cleared
if it failed (fpu__clear()). Don't see here a problem.

Can you tell me which glibc test? I would like to reproduce this.

> The introduction of supervisor xstates and CET, while not contributing to
> the problem, makes it more detectable. After init_fpstate and the Shadow
> Stack pointer have been restored to xregs, the XRSTOR from user stack
> fails and fpu_fpregs_owner_ctx is not updated. The task currently owning
> fpregs then uses the corrupted Shadow Stack pointer and triggers a control-
> protection fault.

So I don't need new HW with supervisor and CET? A plain KVM box with
SSE2 and so should be enough?


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-18 16:55    [W:0.117 / U:3.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site