From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: use WRITE_ONCE() when setting PTEs
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:21:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8aef58c7-c27c-5df8-69b3-b188dd5f64e8@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180902181451.80520-1-namit@vmware.com>
On 09/02/2018 11:14 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
> When page-table entries are set, the compiler might optimize their
> assignment by using multiple instructions to set the PTE. This might
> turn into a security hazard if the user somehow manages to use the
> interim PTE. L1TF does not make our lives easier, making even an interim
> non-present PTE a security hazard.
>
> Using WRITE_ONCE() to set PTEs and friends should prevent this potential
> security hazard.
But, our types are already 64-bit, and we're doing a 64-bit pointer
write. Our WRITE_ONCE() implementation boils down to:
static __always_inline void __write_once_size(...
{
switch (size) {
...
case 8: *(volatile __u64 *)p = *(__u64 *)res; break;
For 64-bit types, which is precisely the same thing. Right?
So, while I agree that it's nice to document the need for a full 64-bit
"atomicity" of the PTE set, I don't see a practical problem here with
our implementation.
There's probably a massive number of things that would break if we
assumed sane 64-bit writes can be observed piecemeal.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-06 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-02 18:14 Nadav Amit
2018-09-06 17:21 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2018-09-06 19:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-07 14:10 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-09-06 19:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-06 20:12 ` Nadav Amit
2018-09-06 20:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-09-08 10:34 ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86/mm: Use " tip-bot for Nadav Amit
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8aef58c7-c27c-5df8-69b3-b188dd5f64e8@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome