Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-92712-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Tetsuo Handa
 <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Dave
 Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: disable non-instrumented version of copy_mc
 when KMSAN is enabled
In-Reply-To: <74d900cf-ab90-49ea-ba55-380d7df59526@intel.com>
References: <3b7dbd88-0861-4638-b2d2-911c97a4cadf@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
 <74d900cf-ab90-49ea-ba55-380d7df59526@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 17:50:51 +0100
Message-ID: <87jzmgvd04.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, Mar 05 2024 at 07:21, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/1/24 14:52, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> -	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ERMS)) {
>> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) && static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ERMS)) {
>>  		__uaccess_begin();
>>  		ret = copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string((__force void *)dst, src, len);
>>  		__uaccess_end();
>
> Where does the false positive _come_ from?  Can we fix copy_mc_fragile()
> and copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string() instead of just not using them?

All it takes is a variant of __msan_memcpy() which uses a variant of
copy_mc_to_kernel() instead of __memcpy(). It's not rocket science.

Aside of that, this:

@@ -74,14 +74,14 @@ unsigned long __must_check copy_mc_to_user(void __user *dst, const void *src, un
 {
	unsigned long ret;

-	if (copy_mc_fragile_enabled) {
+	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KMSAN) && copy_mc_fragile_enabled) {
		__uaccess_begin();

is completely bogus. copy_user_generic() is not at all covered by
KMSAN. So why fiddling with it in the first place? Just because it has
the same pattern as copy_mc_to_kernel()?

> The three enable_copy_mc_fragile() are presumably doing so for a
> reason.

Very much so. It's for MCE recovery purposes.

And yes, the changelog and the non-existing comments should explain why
this is "correct" when KMSAN is enabled. Hint: It is NOT.

Thanks,

        tglx