Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 16:04:09 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org, Coleman Kane <cokane@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cpuctl(formely devcpu) patch test request Message-ID: <20080805130409.GF97161@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20080805161520.90001117.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <1212758604.1904.33.camel@localhost> <20080615230250.7f3efae4.stas@FreeBSD.org> <1213557999.1816.15.camel@localhost> <20080616204433.48ad9879.stas@FreeBSD.org> <e1309ba60806161110x5f774fcdic2f5c7b2e7bcb83e@mail.gmail.com> <20080616222740.5cdd9490.stas@FreeBSD.org> <1213641761.2184.0.camel@localhost> <20080805140324.9f53ba9b.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20080805115315.GE97161@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <20080805161520.90001117.stas@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--uQKdfr6GvE2xHbL0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 04:15:20PM +0400, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:53:15 +0300 > Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> mentioned: >=20 > > On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 02:03:24PM +0400, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:42:41 -0400 > > > Coleman Kane <cokane@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > Is it potentially "unsafe" to use RDMSR? > > > > > > >=20 > > > Well, it might disclose some sensitive information, > > > as well as create covert channels. E.g. some of the > > > registers contains kernel thread pointers, etc; some > > > of them undocumented. It won't be very wise to give > > > access to the rdmsr feature to all users on a > > > multi-user machine. > > >=20 > > > Sorry for this taking so long. You messages spotted > > > a bug in my security model for this driver, so I've > > > redone that. Now, the access to the rdmsr and cpuid > > > features will be granted only if the caller has > > > read permissions on the device, and wrmsr/update > > > - only if he've opened the device for writing. > > > This way you can provide fine-grained control to > > > the driver features. > > >=20 > > > I've also added the cpucontrol utility which provided > > > userland accesss to the driver, and allows to apply > > > microcode updates. > > >=20 > > > The latest patch against HEAD is available here: > > > ftp://ftp.SpringDaemons.com/dustheap/cpuctl.4.diff > > >=20 > > > Thanks! > >=20 > > --- a/sys/amd64/amd64/support.S > > +++ b/sys/amd64/amd64/support.S > > @@ -765,6 +765,7 @@ ENTRY(wrmsr_safe) > > */ > > ALIGN_TEXT > > msr_onfault: > > - movq $0,PCB_ONFAULT(%r8) > > - movl $EFAULT,%eax > > + movq PCPU(CURPCB),%r8 /* set fault handler */ > > + movq $0,PCB_ONFAULT(%r8) > > + movq $EFAULT,%rax > > ret > >=20 > > movq $EFAULT,%rax is better to be replaced by movl, %eax. Amd64 specifi= es > > automatic zeroing of the upper-half of the registers on the 32bit opera= tion. > >=20 >=20 > Yeah, it seems that I thought about this initially, but decided > that this was unsafe lately. Thanks for suggestion! >=20 > There's a fixed version: > ftp://ftp.SpringDaemons.com/dustheap/cpuctl.5.diff Ok. I noted cpucontrol(8) only after trying to import the rev5 patch. I do not suggest changing it, but what are the reasons for the microcode patch headers definitions to be private for the cpucontrol, instead of being put into the machine/<somefile>.h ? --uQKdfr6GvE2xHbL0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkiYT8gACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4ij0ACg2J0tWNk2jWnLkV/PsDp8Yb5y 9JEAoIRCBP6v1WGiF+CidtHd7AMOuATg =DTLx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uQKdfr6GvE2xHbL0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080805130409.GF97161>