[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1539293003.3566.15.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:23:23 -0700
From: Kristen C Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Thomas Gleixner
<tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov
<bp@...en8.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: entry: flush the cache if syscall error
On Thu, 2018-10-11 at 13:55 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:55 AM Kristen Carlson Accardi
> > <kristen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch aims to make it harder to perform cache timing attacks
> > > on data
> > > left behind by system calls. If we have an error returned from a
> > > syscall,
> > > flush the L1 cache.
> > >
> > > It's important to note that this patch is not addressing any
> > > specific
> > > exploit, nor is it intended to be a complete defense against
> > > anything.
> > > It is intended to be a low cost way of eliminating some of side
> > > effects
> > > of a failed system call.
> > >
> > > A performance test using sysbench on one hyperthread and a script
> > > which
> > > attempts to repeatedly access files it does not have permission
> > > to access
> > > on the other hyperthread found no significant performance impact.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++
> > > arch/x86/entry/common.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > index 1a0be022f91d..bde978eb3b4e 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> > > @@ -445,6 +445,15 @@ config RETPOLINE
> > > code are eliminated. Since this includes the syscall
> > > entry path,
> > > it is not entirely pointless.
> > >
> > > +config SYSCALL_FLUSH
> > > + bool "Clear L1 Cache on syscall errors"
> > > + default n
> > > + help
> > > + Selecting 'y' allows the L1 cache to be cleared upon
> > > return of
> > > + an error code from a syscall if the CPU supports
> > > "flush_l1d".
> > > + This may reduce the likelyhood of speculative execution
> > > style
> > > + attacks on syscalls.
> > > +
> > > config INTEL_RDT
> > > bool "Intel Resource Director Technology support"
> > > default n
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/common.c b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> > > index 3b2490b81918..26de8ea71293 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c
> > > @@ -268,6 +268,20 @@ __visible inline void
> > > syscall_return_slowpath(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > prepare_exit_to_usermode(regs);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +__visible inline void l1_cache_flush(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SYSCALL_FLUSH) &&
> > > + static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FLUSH_L1D)) {
> > > + if (regs->ax == 0 || regs->ax == -EAGAIN ||
> > > + regs->ax == -EEXIST || regs->ax == -ENOENT ||
> > > + regs->ax == -EXDEV || regs->ax == -ETIMEDOUT
> > > ||
> > > + regs->ax == -ENOTCONN || regs->ax ==
> > > -EINPROGRESS)
> >
> > What about ax > 0? (Or more generally, any ax outside the range of
> > -1
> > .. -4095 or whatever the error range is.) As it stands, it looks
> > like
> > you'll flush on successful read(), write(), recv(), etc, and that
> > could seriously hurt performance on real workloads.
>
> Seems like just changing this with "ax == 0" into "ax >= 0" would
> solve that?
thanks, will do.
>
> I think this looks like a good idea. It might be worth adding a
> comment about the checks to explain why those errors are whitelisted.
> It's a cheap and effective mitigation for "unknown future problems"
> that doesn't degrade normal workloads.
>
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_FLUSH_CMD, L1D_FLUSH);
>
> What about CPUs without FLUSH_L1D? Could it be done manually with a
> memcpy or something?
It could - my original implementation (pre l1d_flush msr) did, but it
did come with some additional cost in that I allocated per-cpu memory
to keep a 32K buffer around that I could memcpy. It also sacrificed
completeness for simplicity by not taking into account cases where L1
was not 32K. As far as I know this msr is pretty widely deployed, even
on older hardware.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
