In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mm: Eliminate window where TLB flushes may be inadvertently skipped

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

x86/mm: Eliminate window where TLB flushes may be inadvertently skipped

tl;dr: There is a window in the mm switching code where the new CR3 is
set and the CPU should be getting TLB flushes for the new mm. But
should_flush_tlb() has a bug and suppresses the flush. Fix it by
widening the window where should_flush_tlb() sends an IPI.

Long Version:

=== History ===

There were a few things leading up to this.

First, updating mm_cpumask() was observed to be too expensive, so it was
made lazier. But being lazy caused too many unnecessary IPIs to CPUs
due to the now-lazy mm_cpumask(). So code was added to cull
mm_cpumask() periodically[2]. But that culling was a bit too aggressive
and skipped sending TLB flushes to CPUs that need them. So here we are
again.

=== Problem ===

The too-aggressive code in should_flush_tlb() strikes in this window:

 1// Turn on IPIs for this CPU/mm combination, but only
 2// if should_flush_tlb() agrees:
 3cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
 4 
 5next_tlb_gen = atomic64_read(&next->context.tlb_gen);
 6choose_new_asid(next, next_tlb_gen, &new_asid, &need_flush);
 7load_new_mm_cr3(need_flush);
 8// ^ After 'need_flush' is set to false, IPIs *MUST*
 9// be sent to this CPU and not be ignored.
10 
11    this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm, next);
12// ^ Not until this point does should_flush_tlb()
13// become true!

should_flush_tlb() will suppress TLB flushes between load_new_mm_cr3()
and writing to 'loaded_mm', which is a window where they should not be
suppressed. Whoops.

=== Solution ===

Thankfully, the fuzzy "just about to write CR3" window is already marked
with loaded_mm==LOADED_MM_SWITCHING. Simply checking for that state in
should_flush_tlb() is sufficient to ensure that the CPU is targeted with
an IPI.

This will cause more TLB flush IPIs. But the window is relatively small
and I do not expect this to cause any kind of measurable performance
impact.

Update the comment where LOADED_MM_SWITCHING is written since it grew
yet another user.

Peter Z also raised a concern that should_flush_tlb() might not observe
'loaded_mm' and 'is_lazy' in the same order that switch_mm_irqs_off()
writes them. Add a barrier to ensure that they are observed in the
order they are written.