Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 12/21] x86/pti: Use PTI stack instead of
 trampoline stack
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        jan.setjeeilers@oracle.com, Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
        oweisse@google.com, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.de>, mgross@linux.intel.com,
        kuzuno@gmail.com
References: <20201116144757.1920077-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
 <20201116144757.1920077-13-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
 <CALCETrUSCwtR41CCo_cAQf_BwG7istH6fM=bxWh_VfOjSNFmSw@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc8a254e-deaa-388e-99ea-0291f5625b5b@oracle.com>
 <CALCETrUJQJRi6fE=bs3iAySgM8wjmGU1f464FqOuU+PiBwwnQQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bf919e4b-d56f-711d-f7ae-b463b8fdadfd@oracle.com>
 <CALCETrWS8_yugbLGFpGUbj2Z5bV04jnCNcnc40QUXWCdmJQU-g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <6f513efb-cde8-50f4-7872-13a18a10c4a6@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 18:01:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWS8_yugbLGFpGUbj2Z5bV04jnCNcnc40QUXWCdmJQU-g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/17/20 4:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 7:07 AM Alexandre Chartre
> <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/16/20 7:34 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:10 AM Alexandre Chartre
>>> <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/16/20 5:57 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:47 AM Alexandre Chartre
>>>>> <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When entering the kernel from userland, use the per-task PTI stack
>>>>>> instead of the per-cpu trampoline stack. Like the trampoline stack,
>>>>>> the PTI stack is mapped both in the kernel and in the user page-table.
>>>>>> Using a per-task stack which is mapped into the kernel and the user
>>>>>> page-table instead of a per-cpu stack will allow executing more code
>>>>>> before switching to the kernel stack and to the kernel page-table.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> When executing more code in the kernel, we are likely to reach a point
>>>> where we need to sleep while we are using the user page-table, so we need
>>>> to be using a per-thread stack.
>>>>
>>>>> I can't immediately evaluate how nasty the page table setup is because
>>>>> it's not in this patch.
>>>>
>>>> The page-table is the regular page-table as introduced by PTI. It is just
>>>> augmented with a few additional mapping which are in patch 11 (x86/pti:
>>>> Extend PTI user mappings).
>>>>
>>>>>    But AFAICS the only thing that this enables is sleeping with user pagetables.
>>>>
>>>> That's precisely the point, it allows to sleep with the user page-table.
>>>>
>>>>> Do we really need to do that?
>>>>
>>>> Actually, probably not with this particular patchset, because I do the page-table
>>>> switch at the very beginning and end of the C handler. I had some code where I
>>>> moved the page-table switch deeper in the kernel handler where you definitively
>>>> can sleep (for example, if you switch back to the user page-table before
>>>> exit_to_user_mode_prepare()).
>>>>
>>>> So a first step should probably be to not introduce the per-task PTI trampoline stack,
>>>> and stick with the existing trampoline stack. The per-task PTI trampoline stack can
>>>> be introduced later when the page-table switch is moved deeper in the C handler and
>>>> we can effectively sleep while using the user page-table.
>>>
>>> Seems reasonable.
>>>
>>
>> I finally remember why I have introduced a per-task PTI trampoline stack right now:
>> that's to be able to move the CR3 switch anywhere in the C handler. To do so, we need
>> a per-task stack to enter (and return) from the C handler as the handler can potentially
>> go to sleep.
>>
>> Without a per-task trampoline stack, we would be limited to call the switch CR3 functions
>> from the assembly entry code before and after calling the C function handler (also called
>> from assembly).
> 
> The noinstr part of the C entry code won't sleep.
> 

But the noinstr part of the handler can sleep, and if it does we will need to
preserve the trampoline stack (even if we switch to the per-task kernel stack to
execute the noinstr part).

Example:

#define DEFINE_IDTENTRY(func)                                           \
static __always_inline void __##func(struct pt_regs *regs);             \
                                                                         \
__visible noinstr void func(struct pt_regs *regs)                       \
{                                                                       \
         irqentry_state_t state;         -+                              \
                                          |                              \
         user_pagetable_escape(regs);     | use trampoline stack (1)
         state = irqentry_enter(regs);    |                              \
         instrumentation_begin();        -+                              \
         run_idt(__##func, regs);       |===| run __func() on kernel stack (this can sleep)
         instrumentation_end();          -+                              \
         irqentry_exit(regs, state);      | use trampoline stack (2)
         user_pagetable_return(regs);    -+                              \
}

Between (1) and (2) we need to preserve and use the same trampoline stack
in case __func() went sleeping.

alex.