On Wed Mar 19, 2025 at 6:47 PM UTC, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 06:29:35PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 06:40:30PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> > > Add a boot time parameter to control the newly added X86_FEATURE_ASI.
> > > "asi=on" or "asi=off" can be used in the kernel command line to enable
> > > or disable ASI at boot time. If not specified, ASI enablement depends
> > > on CONFIG_ADDRESS_SPACE_ISOLATION_DEFAULT_ON, which is off by default.
> >
> > I don't know yet why we need this default-on thing...
>
> It's a convenience to avoid needing to set asi=on if you want ASI to be
> on by default. It's similar to HUGETLB_PAGE_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP_DEFAULT_ON
> or ZSWAP_DEFAULT_ON.
>
> [..]
> > > @@ -175,7 +184,11 @@ static __always_inline bool asi_is_restricted(void)
> > > return (bool)asi_get_current();
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/* If we exit/have exited, can we stay that way until the next asi_enter? */
> > > +/*
> > > + * If we exit/have exited, can we stay that way until the next asi_enter?
> >
> > What is that supposed to mean here?
>
> asi_is_relaxed() checks if the thread is outside an ASI critical
> section.
>
> I say "the thread" because it will also return true if we are executing
> an interrupt that arrived during the critical section, even though the
> interrupt handler is not technically part of the critical section.
>
> Now the reason it says "if we exit we stay that way" is probably
> referring to the fact that an asi_exit() when interrupting a critical
> section will be undone in the interrupt epilogue by re-entering ASI.
>
> I agree the wording here is confusing. We should probably describe this
> more explicitly and probably rename the function after the API
> discussions you had in the previous patch.
Yeah, this is confusing. It's trying to very concisely define the
concept of "relaxed" but now I see it through Boris' eyes I realise
it's really unhelpful to try and do that. And yeah we should probably
just rework the terminology/API.
To re-iterate what Yosry said, aside from my too-clever comment style
the more fundamental thing that's confusing here is that, using the
terminology currently in the code there are two concepts at play:
- The critical section: this is the path from asi_enter() to
asi_relax(). The critical section can be interrupted, and code
running in those interupts is not said to be "in the critical
section".
- Being "tense" vs "relaxed". Being "tense" means the _task_ is in a
critical section, but the current code might not be.
This distinction is theoretically relevant because e.g. it's a bug to
access sensitive data in a critical section, but it's OK to access it
while in the tense state (we will switch to the restricted address
space, but this is OK because we will have a chance to asi_enter()
again before we get back to the untrusted code).
BTW, just to be clear:
1. Both of these are only relevant to code that's pretty deeply aware
of ASI. (TLB flushing code, entry code, stuff like that).
2. To be honest whenever you write:
if (asi_in_critical_section())
You probably mean:
if (WARN_ON(asi_in_critical_section()))
For example if we try to flush the TLB in the critical section,
there's a thing we can do to handle it. But that really shouldn't
be necessary. We want the critical section code to be very small
and straight-line code.
And indeed in the present code we don't use
asi_in_critical_section() for anything bur WARNing.
> asi_is_relaxed() checks if the thread is outside an ASI critical
> section.
Now I see it written this way, this is probably the best way to
conceptualise it. Instead of having two concepts "tense/relaxed" vs
"ASI critical section" we could just say "the task is in a critical
section" vs "the CPU is in a critical section". So we could have
something like:
bool asi_task_critical(void);
bool asi_cpu_critical(void);
(They could also accept an argument for the task/CPU, but I can't see
any reason why you'd peek at another context like that).
--
For everything else, Ack to Boris or +1 to Yosry respectively.
