lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 7/9] x86: Use current USER_CS to setup correct context on vmx entry
On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 5:15 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 3:40 PM Sean Christopherson
> <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 02:52:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 1:59 PM Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
> > > <krisman@collabora.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > vmx_prepare_switch_to_guest shouldn't use is_64bit_mm, which has a
> > > > very specific use in uprobes. Use the user_64bit_mode helper instead.
> > > > This reduces the usage of is_64bit_mm, which is awkward, since it relies
> > > > on the personality at load time, which is fine for uprobes, but doesn't
> > > > seem fine here.
> > > >
> > > > I tested this by running VMs with 64 and 32 bits payloads from 64/32
> > > > programs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > index 7b2a068f08c1..b5aafd9e5f5d 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > > > @@ -1172,7 +1172,7 @@ void vmx_prepare_switch_to_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > > savesegment(es, host_state->es_sel);
> > > >
> > > > gs_base = cpu_kernelmode_gs_base(cpu);
> > > > - if (likely(is_64bit_mm(current->mm))) {
> > > > + if (likely(user_64bit_mode(current_pt_regs()))) {
> > > > current_save_fsgs();
> > > > fs_sel = current->thread.fsindex;
> > > > gs_sel = current->thread.gsindex;
> > >
> > > I disagree with this one. This whole code path is nonsense. Can you
> > > just remove the condition entirely and use the 64-bit path
> > > unconditionally?
> >
> > I finally came back to this one with fresh eyes. I've read through the code
> > a bajllion times and typed up half a dozen responses. I think, finally, I
> > understand what's broken.
> >
> > I believe your original assertion that the bug was misdiagnosed is correct
> > (can't link because LKML wasn't in the loop). I'm pretty sure your analysis
> > that KVM's handling of things works mostly by coincidence is also correct.
> >
> > The coincidence is that "real" VMMs all use arch_prctl(), and
> > do_arch_prctl_64() ensures thread.{fs,gs}base are accurate. save_base_legacy()
> > detects sel==0 and intentionally does nothing, knowing the the base is already
> > accurate.
> >
> > Userspaces that don't use arch_prctl(), in the bug report case a 32-bit compat
> > test, may or may not have accurate thread.{fs,gs}base values. This is
> > especially true if sel!=0 as save_base_legacy() explicitly zeros the base in
> > this case, as load_seg_legacy() will restore the seg on the backend.
> >
> > KVM on the other hand assumes thread.{fs,gs}base are always fresh. When that
> > didn't hold true for userspace that didn't use arch_prctl(), the fix of
> > detecting a !64-bit mm just so happened to work because all 64-bit VMMs use
> > arch_prctl().
> >
> > It's tempting to just open code this and use RD{FS,GS}BASE when possible,
> > i.e. avoid any guesswork. Maybe with a module param that userspace can set
> > to tell KVM it doesn't do anything fancy with FS/GS base (will userspace still
> > use arch_prctl() even if FSGSABSE is available?).
> >
> > savesegment(fs, fs_sel);
> > savesegment(gs, gs_sel);
> > if (use_current_fsgs_base) {
> > fs_base = current->thread.fsbase;
> > vmx->msr_host_kernel_gs_base = current->thread.gsbase;
>
> I don't like this. The FSGSBASE case is fast, and the !FSGSBASE case
> is mostly obsolete. I see no great reason to have a module parameter
> asking for incorrect behavior. There have been too many bugs in this
> area -- let's not add more please.
>
> > } else if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FSGSBASE)) {
> > fs_base = rdfsbase()
> > vmx->msr_host_kernel_gs_base = __rdgsbase_inactive();
> > } else {
> > fs_base = read_msr(MSR_FS_BASE);
> > vmx->msr_host_kernel_gs_base = read_msr(MSR_KERNEL_GS_BASE);
> > }
>
> I'm okay with this, but I think you should fix the corresponding bugs
> on the restore side as well. The current code is:
>
> if (host_state->ldt_sel || (host_state->gs_sel & 7)) {
> kvm_load_ldt(host_state->ldt_sel);
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> load_gs_index(host_state->gs_sel);
> #else
> loadsegment(gs, host_state->gs_sel);
> #endif
> }
> if (host_state->fs_sel & 7)
> loadsegment(fs, host_state->fs_sel);
>
> which is blatantly wrong in the case where fs_set.TI == 1, gs_set.TI
> == 0, and ldt_sel != 0. But it's also more subtly wrong -- this
> corrupts all the segment attributes in the case where a segment points
> to the GDT and the GDT attributes are non-default. So I would suggest
> making the code radically simpler and more correct:
>
> if (host_state->idt_sel)
> kvm_load_idt(host_state->idt_sel); // see below
> if (host_state->ds_sel)
> loadsegment(ds, host_state->ds_sel);
> if (host_state->es_sel)
> loadsegment(es, host_state->es_sel);
> if (host_state->fs_sel) {
> loadsegment(fs, host_state->fs_sel);
> x86_fsbase_write_cpu(host_state->fs_base);
> }
> if (host_state->gs_sel) {
> load_gs_index(host_state->gs_sel);
> x86_gsbase_write_cpu_inactive(host_state->msr_host_kernel_gs_base);
> }
>
> In the IMO unlikely event that any performance-critical KVM userspace
> runs with these selectors != 0, you could also skip the load if they
> are set to __USER_DS.
>
> You can also simplify this crud:
>
> if (unlikely(fs_sel != host->fs_sel)) {
> if (!(fs_sel & 7))
> vmcs_write16(HOST_FS_SELECTOR, fs_sel);
> else
> vmcs_write16(HOST_FS_SELECTOR, 0);
> host->fs_sel = fs_sel;
> }
>
> There is nothing special about segments with TI set according to the
> SDM (AFAICT) nor is anything particularly special about them in
> Linux's segment tables, so this code makes little sense. It could
> just be:
>
> host->fs_sel = fs_sel;
>
> and leave the VMCS field set to 0. Or if you do the __USER_DS
> optimization above, you could do:
>
> if (unlikely(fs_sel != host->fs_sel)) {
> vmcs_write16(HOST_FS_SELECTOR, fs_sel == __USER_DS ? __USER_DS : 0);
> host->fs_sel = fs_sel;
> }
>
> I suspect that the only users who care about performance (or for whom
> we should care about performance) are normal userspace, and normal
> 64-bit userspace has DS == ES == FS == GS == 0.
>
>
> I would also be okay with making the KVM code match the context switch
> code, but this may be distinctly nontrivial.

If you're okay waiting for a couple days, I'll just do this. I have
it 2/3-done already, except I'm running into the utter catastrophe
that is 32-bit stackprotector, so I'm going to fix that first. (Or
delete it if I get toosick of it.)

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-04 01:05    [W:0.081 / U:3.964 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site