On 14/02/18 12:15, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 14/02/18 13:03, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 14/02/18 12:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 14/02/18 07:54, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 13/02/18 20:45, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> The current XPTI implementation isolates the directmap (and therefore a 
>>>>> lot of
>>>>> guest data), but a large quantity of CPU0's state (including its stack)
>>>>> remains visible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, an attacker able to read .text is in a vastly superior 
>>>>> position
>>>>> to normal when it comes to fingerprinting Xen for known vulnerabilities, 
>>>>> or
>>>>> scanning for ROP/Spectre gadgets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Collect together the entrypoints in .text.entry (currently 3x4k frames, 
>>>>> but
>>>>> can almost certainly be slimmed down), and create a common mapping which 
>>>>> is
>>>>> inserted into each per-cpu shadow.  The stubs are also inserted into this
>>>>> mapping by pointing at the in-use L2.  This allows stubs allocated later 
>>>>> (SMP
>>>>> boot, or CPU hotplug) to work without further changes to the common 
>>>>> mappings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> CC: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
>>>>> CC: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com>
>>>>> CC: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> RFC, because I don't think the stubs handling is particularly sensible.
>>>>>
>>>>> We allocate 4k of virtual address space per CPU, but squash loads of CPUs
>>>>> together onto a single MFN.  The stubs ought to be isolated as well (as 
>>>>> they
>>>>> leak the virtual addresses of each stack), which can be done by 
>>>>> allocating an
>>>>> MFN per CPU (and simplifies cpu_smpboot_alloc() somewhat).  At this 
>>>>> point, we
>>>>> can't use a common set of mappings, and will have to clone the single 
>>>>> stub and
>>>>> .entry.text into each PCPUs copy of the pagetables.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, my plan to cause .text.entry to straddle a 512TB boundary (and 
>>>>> therefore
>>>>> avoid any further pagetable allocations) has come a little unstuck 
>>>>> because of
>>>>> CONFIG_BIGMEM.  I'm still working out whether there is a sensible way to
>>>>> rearrange the virtual layout for this plan to work.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c             | 37 
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/x86_64/compat/entry.S |  2 ++
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/x86_64/entry.S        |  4 +++-
>>>>>  xen/arch/x86/xen.lds.S             |  7 +++++++
>>>>>  4 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c b/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
>>>>> index 2ebef03..2519141 100644
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
>>>>> @@ -622,6 +622,9 @@ unsigned long alloc_stub_page(unsigned int cpu, 
>>>>> unsigned long *mfn)
>>>>>          unmap_domain_page(memset(__map_domain_page(pg), 0xcc, 
>>>>> PAGE_SIZE));
>>>>>      }
>>>>>  
>>>>> +    /* Confirm that all stubs fit in a single L2 pagetable. */
>>>>> +    BUILD_BUG_ON(NR_CPUS * PAGE_SIZE > (1u << L2_PAGETABLE_SHIFT));
>>>> So we limit NR_CPUS to be max 512 now?
>>> Not intentionally.  The PAGE_SIZE should be dropped.  (One full L2
>>> pagetable allows us to map 512*512 pages).
>> L2_PAGETABLE_SHIFT is 21. So I still don't get why dropping PAGE_SIZE
>> will correct it. OTOH I'm quite sure the BUILD_BUG_ON() won't trigger
>> any more with PAGE_SIZE being dropped. :-)
>>
>>>> Maybe you should use STUB_BUF_SIZE instead of PAGE_SIZE?
>>> No - that would be incorrect because of the physical packing of stubs
>>> which occurs.
>>>
>>>> BTW: Is there any reason we don't use a common stub page mapped to each
>>>> per-cpu stack area? The stack address can easily be obtained via %rip
>>>> relative addressing then (see my patch for the per-vcpu stacks:
>>>> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-02/msg00773.html )
>>> I don't understand what you are asking here.  We cannot access the
>>> per-cpu area with plain rip-retaliative addressing without using gs base
>>> (and we really don't want to go down that route), or without per-cpu
>>> pagetables (which would have to be a compile time choice).
>> The stub-page of a cpu is currently mapped as the 3rd page of the
>> stack area. So the distance to the primary stack would be the same
>> for all cpus (a little bit less than 20kB).
>>
>>> As for why the per-cpu areas aren't mapped, that's because they aren't
>>> needed at the moment.  Any decision to change this needs to weigh the
>>> utility of mapping the areas vs the additional data leakage, which is
>>> substantial.
>> The stack area is mapped. And that's where the stub is living.
> Oh, did I mix up something? I followed the comments in current.h. The
> code suggests the syscall trampoline page isn't used at the moment for
> the stubs...

That will be stale from the work Jan did to make the stack fully NX. 
The syscall stubs used to be on the stack, but are no longer.

~Andrew

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

Reply via email to