Re: [PATCH RFC v2 03/29] mm: asi: Introduce ASI core API

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 02:53:03PM +0100, Brendan Jackman wrote:
> Argh, sorry, GMail switched back to HTML mode somehow. Maybe I have to
> get a proper mail client after all.

Yap, wouldn't be such a bad idea. And yes, it ain't easy - we have a whole doc
about it:

Documentation/process/email-clients.rst

> OK, sounds like I need to rewrite this explanation! It's only been
> read before by people who already knew how this thing worked so this
> might take a few attempts to make it clear.
> 
> Maybe the best way to make it clear is to explain this with reference
> to KVM. At a super high level, That looks like:
> 
> ioctl(KVM_RUN) {
>     enter_from_user_mode()
>     while !need_userspace_handling() {
>         asi_enter();  // part 1
>         vmenter();  // part 2
>         asi_relax(); // part 3
>     }
>     asi _exit(); // part 4b
>     exit_to_user_mode()
> }
> 
> So part 4a is just referring to continuation of the loop.
> 
> This explanation was written when that was the only user of this API
> so it was probably clearer, now we have userspace it seems a bit odd.
> 
> With my pseudocode above, does it make more sense? If so I'll try to
> think of a better way to explain it.

Well, it is still confusing. I would expect to see:

ioctl(KVM_RUN) {
    enter_from_user_mode()
    while !need_userspace_handling() {
        asi_enter();  // part 1
        vmenter();  // part 2
        asi_exit(); // part 3
    }
    asi_switch(); // part 4b
    exit_to_user_mode()
}

Because then it is ballanced: you enter the restricted address space, do stuff
and then you exit it without switching address space. But then you need to
switch address space so you have to do asi_exit or asi_switch or wnatnot. And
that's still unbalanced.

So from *only* looking at the usage, it'd be a lot more balanced if all calls
were paired:

ioctl(KVM_RUN) {
    enter_from_user_mode()
    asi_switch_to();			<-------+
    while !need_userspace_handling() {		|
        asi_enter();  // part 1		<---+	|
        vmenter();  // part 2		    |	|
        asi_exit(); // part 3		<---+	|
    }						|
    asi_switch_back(); // part 4b	<-------+
    exit_to_user_mode()
}

(look at me doing ascii paintint :-P)

Naming is awful but it should illustrate what I mean:

	asi_switch_to
	  asi_enter
	  asi_exit
	asi_switch_back

Does that make more sense?

> asi_enter() is actually balanced with asi_relax(). The comment says
> "if we are in it" because technically if you call this asi_relax()
> outside of the critical section, it's a nop. But, there's no reason to
> do that, so we could definitely change the comment and WARN if that
> happens.

See above.

> 
> >
> > > +#define ASI_TAINT_OTHER_MM_CONTROL   ((asi_taints_t)BIT(6))
> > > +#define ASI_NUM_TAINTS                       6
> > > +static_assert(BITS_PER_BYTE * sizeof(asi_taints_t) >= ASI_NUM_TAINTS);
> >
> > Why is this a typedef at all to make the code more unreadable than it needs to
> > be? Why not a simple unsigned int or char or whatever you need?
> 
> 
> My thinking was just that it's nicer to see asi_taints_t and know that
> it means "it holds taint flags and it's big enough" instead of having
> to remember the space needed for these flags. But yeah I'm fine with
> making it a raw integer type.

You're thinking of some of those rules here perhaps?

https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#typedefs

Probably but then you're using casts (asi_taints_t) to put in integers in it.
Does it matter then?

Might as well use a plain int and avoid the casts, no? Unless there's a real
good reason to have a special type and it is really really good this way...?

> Well it needs to be disambiguated from the field below (currently
> protect_data) but it could be control_to_flush (and data_to_flush).
> 
> The downside of that is that having one say "prevent" and one say
> "protect" is quite meaningful. prevent_control is describing things we
> need to do to protect the system from this domain, protect_data is
> about protecting the domain from the system. However, while that
> difference is meaningful it might not actually be helpful for the
> reader of the code so I'm not wed to it.
> 
> Also worth noting that we could just combine these fields. At present
> they should have disjoint bits set. But, they're used in separate
> contexts and have separate (although conceptually very similar)
> meanings, so I think that would reduce clarity.

Ok, I guess it'll tell us what is better once we stare at that code more. :)

> Ack, I've set up a local thingy to spellcheck all my commits so
> hopefully you should encounter less of that noise in future.

Yeah, I use the default vim spellchecker and it simply works.
 
> For the pronouns stuff I will do my best but you might still spot
> violations in older text, sorry about that.

No worries.

> What this field is describing is: when we run the untrusted code, what
> happens? I don't mean "what does the kernel do" but what physically
> happens on the CPU from an exploit point of view.
> 
> For example setting ASI_TAINT_USER_DATA in this field means "when we
> run the untrusted code (i.e. userspace), userspace data gets left
> behind in sidechannels".
> 
> "Should be set" in the comment means "this field should be set to
> record that a thing has happened" not "this field being set is a
> requirement for some API" or something. So I don't think "required" is
> right but this is hard to name.
> 
> That commentary should also be expanded I think, since "should be set"
> is pretty ambiguous. And maybe if we called it "to_set" it would be
> more obvious that "set" is a verb? I'm very open to suggestions.

I think the explanations you give here should be condensed into comments over
those things. They're really helpful.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette