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 00/21] x86/pti: Defer CR3 switch to C code
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, luto@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        thomas.lendacky@amd.com, jroedel@suse.de, konrad.wilk@oracle.com,
        jan.setjeeilers@oracle.com, junaids@google.com, oweisse@google.com,
        rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, graf@amazon.de, mgross@linux.intel.com,
        kuzuno@gmail.com
References: <20201116144757.1920077-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
 <20201116202426.GF1131@zn.tnic>
 <692599af-53c8-7881-2bc7-8898085400cd@oracle.com>
 <20201117170735.GH5719@zn.tnic>
From:   Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <14f4a09c-361c-2110-f2e8-e2465076ab5b@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 19:24:42 +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: <20201117170735.GH5719@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 11/17/20 6:07 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 09:19:01AM +0100, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
>> We are not reversing PTI, we are extending it.
> 
> You're reversing it in the sense that you're mapping more kernel memory
> into the user page table than what is mapped now.
> 
>> PTI removes all kernel mapping from the user page-table. However there's
>> no issue with mapping some kernel data into the user page-table as long as
>> these data have no sensitive information.
> 
> I hope that is the case.
> 
>> Actually, PTI is already doing that but with a very limited scope. PTI adds
>> into the user page-table some kernel mappings which are needed for userland
>> to enter the kernel (such as the kernel entry text, the ESPFIX, the
>> CPU_ENTRY_AREA_BASE...).
>>
>> So here, we are extending the PTI mapping so that we can execute more kernel
>> code while using the user page-table; it's a kind of PTI on steroids.
> 
> And this is what bothers me - someone else might come after you and say,
> but but, I need to map more stuff into the user pgt because I wanna do
> X... and so on.

Agree, any addition should be strictly checked. I have been careful to expand
it to the minimum I needed.


>> The minimum size would be 1 page (4KB) as this is the minimum mapping size.
>> It's certainly enough for now as the usage of the PTI stack is limited, but
>> we will need larger stack if we won't to execute more kernel code with the
>> user page-table.
> 
> So on a big machine with a million tasks, that's at least a million
> pages more which is what, ~4 Gb?
> 
> There better be a very good justification for the additional memory
> consumption...

Yeah, adding a per-task allocation is my main concern, hence this RFC.


alex.