Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-175190-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 18:22:38 -0700
From: Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	Robert Gill <rtgill82@gmail.com>,
	"Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)" <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
	antonio.gomez.iglesias@linux.intel.com,
	daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/entry_32: Move CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS before CR3 switch
Message-ID: <20240510012149.5mdrr4x6suspaasd@desk>
References: <20240426-fix-dosemu-vm86-v1-1-88c826a3f378@linux.intel.com>
 <5b9a2cef-7b4f-41c3-9f64-4fea4d007cdf@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5b9a2cef-7b4f-41c3-9f64-4fea4d007cdf@intel.com>

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 05:20:31PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 4/26/24 16:48, Pawan Gupta wrote:
> > Move the VERW before the CR3 switch for 32-bit kernels as a workaround.
> 
> I look at the 32-bit code so rarely, I seem to forget have to re-learn
> this gunk every time I look at it.  Take a look at RESTORE_INT_REGS.  On
> 32-bit, we actually restore %ds:
> 
> 	popl    %ds
> 
> So even doing this:
> 
> > +       CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS
> >         /* Restore user state */
> >         RESTORE_REGS pop=4                      # skip orig_eax/error_code
> > -       CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS
> >  .Lirq_return:
> 
> fixes the issue.  Moving it above the CR3 switch also works of course,
> but I don't think this has anything to do with CR3.  It's just that
> userspace sets a funky %ds value and CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS uses ds:.

I will test it out, but I think you are right. VERW documentation says:

  #GP(0)	If a memory operand effective address is outside the CS,
		DS, ES, FS, or GS segment limit.

> I don't think any of the segment registers can have secrets in them, can
> they?  I mean, it's possible, but in practice I can't imagine.

I don't think so they are secrets. AFAICT, their values are build-time
constants, and can be easily deduced.

> So why not just do the CLEAR_CPU_BUFFERS in RESTORE_REGS but after
> RESTORE_INT_REGS?  You might be able to do it universally, or you could
> pass in a macro argument to do it conditionally.

Sounds good. I will try that, possibly tomorrow.

> P.S. Can we remove 32-bit support yet?  Please? :)

+1 ... or atleast the mitigations for 32-bit :)