Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/stackframe/32: repair 32-bit Xen PV

[Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 24.10.2019 18:11, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:41 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Once again RPL checks have been introduced which don't account for a
>> 32-bit kernel living in ring 1 when running in a PV Xen domain. The
>> case in FIXUP_FRAME has been preventing boot; adjust BUG_IF_WRONG_CR3
>> as well just in case.
> 
> I'm okay with the generated code, but IMO the macro is too indirect
> for something that's trivial.
> 
>>
>> Fixes: 3c88c692c287 ("x86/stackframe/32: Provide consistent pt_regs")
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_32.S
>> @@ -48,6 +48,17 @@
>>
>>   #include "calling.h"
>>
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_XEN_PV
>> +# define USER_SEGMENT_RPL_MASK SEGMENT_RPL_MASK
>> +#else
>> +/*
>> + * When running paravirtualized on Xen the kernel runs in ring 1, and hence
>> + * simple mask based tests (i.e. ones not comparing against USER_RPL) have 
>> to
>> + * ignore bit 0. See also the C-level get_kernel_rpl().
>> + */
> 
> How about:
> 
> /*
>   * When running on Xen PV, the actual %cs register in the kernel is 1, not 0.
>   * If we need to distinguish between a %cs from kernel mode and a %cs from
>   * user mode, we can do test $2 instead of test $3.
>   */
> #define USER_SEGMENT_RPL_MASK 2

I.e. you're fine using just the single bit in all configurations?

>> +# define USER_SEGMENT_RPL_MASK (SEGMENT_RPL_MASK & ~1)
>> +#endif
>> +
>>          .section .entry.text, "ax"
>>
>>   /*
>> @@ -172,7 +183,7 @@
>>          ALTERNATIVE "jmp .Lend_\@", "", X86_FEATURE_PTI
>>          .if \no_user_check == 0
>>          /* coming from usermode? */
>> -       testl   $SEGMENT_RPL_MASK, PT_CS(%esp)
>> +       testl   $USER_SEGMENT_RPL_MASK, PT_CS(%esp)
> 
> Shouldn't PT_CS(%esp) be 0 if we came from the kernel?  I'm guessing
> the actual bug is in whatever code put 1 in here in the first place.
> 
> In other words, I'm having trouble understanding why there is any
> context in which some value would be 3 for user mode and 1 for kernel
> mode.  Obviously if we're manually IRETing to kernel mode, we need to
> set CS to 1, but if we're filling in our own PT_CS, we should just
> write 0.
> 
> The supposedly offending commit (""x86/stackframe/32: Provide
> consistent pt_regs") looks correct to me, so I suspect that the
> problem is elsewhere.  Or is it intentional that Xen PV's asm
> (arch/x86/xen/whatever) sticks 1 into the CS field on the stack?

Manually created / updated frames _could_ in principle modify the
RPL, but ones coming from hardware (old 32-bit hypervisors) or Xen
(64-bit hypervisors) will have an RPL of 1, as already said by
Andrew. We could in principle also add a VM assist for the
hypervisor to store an RPL of 0, but I'd expect this to require
further kernel changes, and together with the old behavior still
being required to support I'm unconvinced this would be worth it.

> Also, why are we supporting 32-bit Linux PV guests at all?  Can we
> just delete this code instead?

This was already suggested by Jürgen (now also CC-ed), but in reply
it was pointed out that the process would be to first deprecate the
code, and remove it only a couple of releases later if no-one comes
up with a reason to retain it.

Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel