Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-28919-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 03:39:16 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Kevin Loughlin <kevinloughlin@google.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Bill Wendling <morbo@google.com>,
	Justin Stitt <justinstitt@google.com>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
	Pankaj Gupta <pankaj.gupta@amd.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Steve Rutherford <srutherford@google.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@gmail.com>,
	Wang Jinchao <wangjinchao@xfusion.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Dionna Glaze <dionnaglaze@google.com>,
	Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
	Michael Roth <michael.roth@amd.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-coco@lists.linux.dev, Ashish Kalra <ashish.kalra@amd.com>,
	Adam Dunlap <acdunlap@google.com>, Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>,
	Jacob Xu <jacobhxu@google.com>,
	Sidharth Telang <sidtelang@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] x86/sev: enforce RIP-relative accesses in early
 SEV/SME code
Message-ID: <Zae8ZKTpcN_BzaqU@tassilo>
References: <ZZ7YuEexYSaZYmLK@tassilo>
 <20240111223650.3502633-1-kevinloughlin@google.com>
 <20240115204634.GHZaWZqsVyU_fvn_RW@fat_crate.local>
 <CAMj1kXH=k26nNyB+LQJ7WUJgbD2f3PREyjCzSngMCGc+72XJ6w@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXH=k26nNyB+LQJ7WUJgbD2f3PREyjCzSngMCGc+72XJ6w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 11:59:14AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 at 21:47, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:36:50PM +0000, Kevin Loughlin wrote:
> > > SEV/SME code can execute prior to page table fixups for kernel
> > > relocation. However, as with global variables accessed in
> > > __startup_64(), the compiler is not required to generate RIP-relative
> > > accesses for SEV/SME global variables, causing certain flavors of SEV
> > > hosts and guests built with clang to crash during boot.
> >
> > So, about that. If I understand my gcc toolchain folks correctly:
> >
> > mcmodel=kernel - everything fits into the high 31 bit of the address
> > space
> >
> > -fPIE/PIC - position independent
> >
> > And supplied both don't make a whole lotta of sense: if you're building
> > position-independent, then mcmodel=kernel would be overridden by the
> > first.
> >
> > I have no clue why clang enabled it...
> >
> > So, *actually* the proper fix here should be not to add this "fixed_up"
> > gunk everywhere but remove mcmodel=kernel from the build and simply do
> > -fPIE/PIC.

For the SEV file this might not work because it also has functions
that get called later at runtime, and may need to reference real
globals. I doubt the linker could resolve that.

For linking the whole kernel, I haven't seen the latest numbers, but
traditionally -fPIE/PIC cost some performance because globals get loaded
through the GOT instead of directly as immediates. That's why the original
x86-64 port went with -mcmodel=kernel.

Of course for the startup code it doesn't matter, but it might make
a difference for hot path code.

> >
> 
> Fully agree. All this fiddling with RIP relative references from C
> code is going to be a maintenance burden going forward.

IIC it's only a few functions in this case, so it shouldn't be that bad.
The early x86 startup code has a few other areas with odd restrictions,
so it's not unprecedented.

-Andi