LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirsky <luto@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: Speculative execution warnings
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 01:00:33 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPM31RJ_vQsLp3nK5nhq0U8J+x_9w=aV+TtPGj7vdtiOKPpw8g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190510192514.19301-1-namit@vmware.com>

From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:45 PM
To: <x86@kernel.org>
Cc: Borislav Petkov, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Nadav Amit, Andy
Lutomirsky, Ingo Molnar, Peter Zijlstra, Thomas Gleixner, Jann Horn

> It may be useful to check in runtime whether certain assertions are
> violated even during speculative execution. This can allow to avoid
> adding unnecessary memory fences and at the same time check that no data
> leak channels exist.
>
> For example, adding such checks can show that allocating zeroed pages
> can return speculatively non-zeroed pages (the first qword is not
> zero).  [This might be a problem when the page-fault handler performs
> software page-walk, for example.]
>
> Introduce SPEC_WARN_ON(), which checks in runtime whether a certain
> condition is violated during speculative execution. The condition should
> be computed without branches, e.g., using bitwise operators. The check
> will wait for the condition to be realized (i.e., not speculated), and
> if the assertion is violated, a warning will be thrown.
>
> Warnings can be provided in one of two modes: precise and imprecise.
> Both mode are not perfect. The precise mode does not always make it easy
> to understand which assertion was broken, but instead points to a point
> in the execution somewhere around the point in which the assertion was
> violated.  In addition, it prints a warning for each violation (unlike
> WARN_ONCE() like behavior).
>
> The imprecise mode, on the other hand, can sometimes throw the wrong
> indication, specifically if the control flow has changed between the
> speculative execution and the actual one. Note that it is not a
> false-positive, it just means that the output would mislead the user to
> think the wrong assertion was broken.
>
> There are some more limitations. Since the mechanism requires an
> indirect branch, it should not be used in production systems that are
> susceptible for Spectre v2. The mechanism requires TSX and performance
> counters that are only available in skylake+. There is a hidden
> assumption that TSX is not used in the kernel for anything else, other
> than this mechanism.
>

Nice trick!

Can you eliminate the indirect call by forcing an access fault to
abort the transaction instead, e.g. "cmove 0, $1"?

(If this works, it may also allow support on older architectures as
the RTM_RETIRED.ABORT* events go back further I believe?)

> The basic idea behind the implementation is to use a performance counter
> that updates also during speculative execution as an indication for
> assertion failure. By using conditional-mov, which is not predicted,
> to affect the control flow, the condition is realized before the event
> that affects the PMU is triggered.
>
> Enable this feature by setting "spec_warn=on" or "spec_warn=precise"
> kernel parameter. I did not run performance numbers but I guess the
> overhead should not be too high.
>
> I did not run too many tests, but brief experiments suggest that it does
> work. Let me know if I missed anything and whether you think this can be
> useful. To be frank, the exact use cases are not super clear, and there
> are various possible extensions (e.g., ensuring the speculation window
> is long enough by adding data dependencies). I would appreciate your
> inputs.
>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirsky <luto@kernel.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig                     |   4 +
>  arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h |  30 +++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/Makefile             |   1 +
>  arch/x86/kernel/nospec.c             | 185 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 220 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/nospec.c
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> index 62fc3fda1a05..2cc57c2172be 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> @@ -2887,6 +2887,10 @@ config X86_DMA_REMAP
>  config HAVE_GENERIC_GUP
>         def_bool y
>
> +config DEBUG_SPECULATIVE_EXECUTION
> +       bool "Debug speculative execution"
> +       depends on X86_64
> +
>  source "drivers/firmware/Kconfig"
>
>  source "arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig"
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> index dad12b767ba0..3f1af6378304 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/nospec-branch.h
> @@ -290,6 +290,36 @@ static inline void indirect_branch_prediction_barrier(void)
>  /* The Intel SPEC CTRL MSR base value cache */
>  extern u64 x86_spec_ctrl_base;
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPECULATIVE_EXECUTION
> +
> +extern bool spec_check(unsigned long cond);
> +
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(spec_test_key);
> +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(spec_test_precise_key);
> +
> +#define SPEC_WARN_ON(cond)                                             \
> +do {                                                                   \
> +       bool _error;                                                    \
> +                                                                       \
> +       if (!static_branch_unlikely(&spec_test_key))                    \
> +               break;                                                  \
> +                                                                       \
> +       _error = spec_check((unsigned long)(cond));                     \
> +                                                                       \
> +       if (static_branch_unlikely(&spec_test_precise_key))             \
> +               break;                                                  \
> +                                                                       \
> +       WARN_ONCE(_error,                                               \
> +               "Speculative execution assertion failed: (%s)\n",       \
> +               __stringify(cond));                                     \
> +} while (0)
> +
> +#else
> +
> +#define SPEC_BUG_ON(cond)      BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(cond)
> +
> +#endif
> +
>  /*
>   * With retpoline, we must use IBRS to restrict branch prediction
>   * before calling into firmware.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile b/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
> index 00b7e27bc2b7..63a3a1420f8e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/Makefile
> @@ -139,6 +139,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_X86_INTEL_UMIP)                += umip.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC)             += unwind_orc.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER)   += unwind_frame.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_UNWINDER_GUESS)           += unwind_guess.o
> +obj-y                                  += nospec.o
>
>  ###
>  # 64 bit specific files
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/nospec.c b/arch/x86/kernel/nospec.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..9e0711d34543
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/nospec.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/perf_event.h>
> +
> +#include <asm/cmdline.h>
> +
> +#include "../events/perf_event.h"
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_SPECULATIVE_EXECUTION
> +
> +static struct perf_event_attr spec_event_attr = {
> +       .type                   = PERF_TYPE_RAW,
> +       .size                   = sizeof(struct perf_event_attr),
> +       .config                 = 0x15d,
> +       .sample_freq            = 1,
> +       .pinned                 = 1,
> +       .freq                   = 1,
> +       .exclude_user           = 1,
> +};
> +
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned int, spec_warn_irq_count);
> +
> +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(spec_test_key);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(spec_test_key);
> +
> +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(spec_test_precise_key);
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(spec_test_precise_key);
> +
> +static void spec_event_handler(struct perf_event *evt,
> +               struct perf_sample_data *data, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> +       unsigned int cnt;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * We need a barrier to prevent the xabort from being executed
> +        * speculatively.
> +        */
> +
> +       indirect_branch_prediction_barrier();
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Avoid false positives or wrong indications in the wrong spot due to
> +        * IRQs.
> +        */
> +       cnt = this_cpu_read(irq_count);
> +       this_cpu_write(spec_warn_irq_count, cnt);
> +       if (!static_branch_unlikely(&spec_test_precise_key))
> +               return;
> +
> +       WARN(1, "Speculative execution detected at ip=%lx\n", regs->ip);
> +}
> +
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct perf_event *, spec_perf_event);
> +
> +void nop_func(void)
> +{
> +}
> +
> +void xabort_func(void)
> +{
> +       asm volatile ("xabort $1");
> +}
> +
> +bool spec_check(unsigned long cond)
> +{
> +       bool error = false;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Avoid mistakenly triggering more events inside the NMI handler. We
> +        * will assume that this condition can be resolved with speculation.
> +        */
> +       if (in_nmi())
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       preempt_disable();
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Run a transaction which would only trigger xabort if the condition
> +        * is true. This xabort is counted by the PMU and  will trigger an
> +        * interrupt. The conditional move prevents speculative evaluation of
> +        * the condition. The branch would not mistakenly be mispredicted later
> +        * to run xabort again, since we run IBPB in the nmi handler.
> +        *
> +        * The implementation is based on the assumption cmov's are not going
> +        * through prediction, which is a common assumption. It is based on
> +        * Intel SDM saying "Use the SETCC and CMOV instructions to eliminate
> +        * unpredictable conditional branches where possible".
> +        *
> +        * This code is susceptible to Spectre v2 attacks.
> +        */
> +       asm volatile ("xbegin 1f\n\t"
> +                     "movq nop_func, %%rax\n\t"
> +                     "testq %[cond], %[cond]\n\t"
> +                     "cmovnzq %[xabort_func], %%rax\n\t"
> +                     ANNOTATE_RETPOLINE_SAFE
> +                     "call *%%rax\n\t"
> +                     "xend\n\t"
> +                     "1:" : : [cond]"r"((u64)(cond)), [xabort_func]"r"(xabort_func) :
> +                               "memory", "rax");
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Prevent wrong alerts due to speculative events that happened in the
> +        * IRQ handler.
> +        */
> +       if (likely(__this_cpu_read(spec_warn_irq_count) != __this_cpu_read(irq_count)))
> +               goto out;
> +
> +       /* Check again with IRQs disabled to be sure we get a stable read. */
> +       this_cpu_write(spec_warn_irq_count, -2);
> +       error = true;
> +out:
> +       preempt_enable();
> +       return error;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(spec_check);
> +
> +static int __init nospec_init(void)
> +{
> +       int cpu, len;
> +       char buf[20];
> +       bool precise, enable;
> +
> +       /* Check the TSX and PMU are supported */
> +       if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RTM) || !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL)) {
> +               pr_err("Speculative checks are not supported on this CPU");
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Unlike their name indicates, precise warnings are actually
> +        * imprecise, in the sense that they do not provide the exact code that
> +        * caused the speculation failure. They are precise in the sense that
> +        * they are prevent scenarios that the wrong assertion will be assumed
> +        * to fail.  This might happen if speculatively a certain assertion
> +        * fails, but on the actual execution, this assertion does not fail.
> +        */
> +       len = cmdline_find_option(boot_command_line, "spec_warn",  buf, sizeof(buf));
> +
> +       if (len < 0)
> +               return 0;
> +
> +       precise = (len == 7 && !strncmp(buf, "precise", 7));
> +       enable = (len == 2 && !strncmp(buf, "on", 2)) || precise;
> +
> +       if (!enable) {
> +               pr_err("Invalid spec_warn argument (spec_warn=%s)", buf);
> +               return 0;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Set impossible value in order not to trigger a warning */
> +       for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> +               per_cpu(spec_warn_irq_count, cpu) = (unsigned int)-2;
> +
> +       if (precise)
> +               static_key_enable(&spec_test_precise_key.key);
> +
> +       pr_info("Enabling %s speculative execution checks",
> +                       precise ? "precise" : "imprecise");
> +
> +       /*
> +        * For each CPU, set a performance counter to trigger a PMU interrupt
> +        * whenever an instruction that causes a transaction abort is executed.
> +        * These instruction will only be counted within a transaction.
> +        */
> +       for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +               struct perf_event *evt =
> +                       perf_event_create_kernel_counter(&spec_event_attr, cpu,
> +                                       NULL, &spec_event_handler, NULL);
> +
> +               if (!evt) {
> +                       pr_err("Failed to enable speculative checks");
> +                       break;
> +               }
> +
> +               per_cpu(spec_perf_event, cpu) = evt;
> +       }
> +
> +       static_key_enable(&spec_test_key.key);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +arch_initcall(nospec_init);
> +
> +#endif
> --
> 2.19.1
>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-05-14  8:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-05-10 19:25 Nadav Amit
2019-05-11  3:15 ` Randy Dunlap
2019-05-14  8:00 ` Paul Turner [this message]
2019-05-14 17:00   ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-14 17:15     ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-16 18:53       ` Nadav Amit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAPM31RJ_vQsLp3nK5nhq0U8J+x_9w=aV+TtPGj7vdtiOKPpw8g@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=namit@vmware.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC] x86: Speculative execution warnings' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).