[MODERATED] Re: [PATCH 2/2] more sampling fun 2
mark gross <[email protected]> Thu, 20 Feb 2020 11:35:50 -0800
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.lore.historical-speck |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 07:06:46PM +0000, speck for Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 14:16 -0800, speck for mark gross wrote:
> [...]
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c
> [...]
> > +void srbds_configure_mitigation(void)
> > +{
> > + u64 mcu_ctrl;
> > +
> > + if (!boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_SRBDS) && !boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_SRBDS_TSX))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SRBDS_CTRL))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MCU_OPT_CTRL, mcu_ctrl);
> > + if (srbds_mitigation == SRBDS_MITIGATION_FULL)
> > + mcu_ctrl &= ~SRBDS_MITG_DIS;
> > + else if (srbds_mitigation == SRBDS_MITIGATION_OFF)
> > + mcu_ctrl |= SRBDS_MITG_DIS;
> > +
> > + if (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_SRBDS_TSX) && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RTM))
> > + mcu_ctrl |= SRBDS_MITG_DIS;
>
> In this case we will incorrectly report "Mitigation: bus lock when
> using RDRAND or RDSEED" whereas the actual mitigation is that TSX is
> disabled.
I am not calling disabling TSX a mitigation in this case. If TSX is disabled
then you are not vulnerable and the mitigation can be disabled..
>
> > + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_MCU_OPT_CTRL, mcu_ctrl);
> > +}
> [...]
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> [...]
> > @@ -1042,6 +1047,19 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_id_ext cpu_vuln_whitelist[] __initconst = {
> >
> > VULNWL_INTEL(CORE_YONAH, NO_SSB),
> >
> > + VULNWL_INTEL(IVYBRIDGE, SRBDS), /*06_3A*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL(HASWELL, SRBDS), /*06_3C*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL(HASWELL_L, SRBDS), /*06_45*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL(HASWELL_G, SRBDS), /*06_46*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL(BROADWELL_G, SRBDS), /*06_47*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL(BROADWELL, SRBDS), /*06_3D*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL(SKYLAKE_L, SRBDS), /*06_4E*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL(SKYLAKE, SRBDS), /*06_5E*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL_STEPPING(KABYLAKE_L, (BIT(0xA)-1), SRBDS), /*06_8E steppings <=A*/
>
> But this matches steppings 0-9.
well, with the bitmask its zero based indexing of the stepping. I'll check
with others to double check my assumption.
>
> > + VULNWL_INTEL_STEPPING(KABYLAKE_L, BIT(0xB)|BIT(0xC), SRBDS_TSX), /*06_8E stepping = 0xB if TSX enabled*/
> > + VULNWL_INTEL_STEPPING(KABYLAKE, (BIT(0xB)-1), SRBDS), /*06_9E steppings <=B*/
>
> And this matches steppings 0-A.
>
> > + VULNWL_INTEL_STEPPING(KABYLAKE, BIT(0xC)|BIT(0xD), SRBDS_TSX), /*06_9E stepping = 0xC if TSX enabled*/
> [...]
>
> You should write the bit masks using GENMASK() instead of BIT().
Ok I'll swith to GENMASK on the next version.
--mark