linux-kernel - Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 0/2] i386: espfix fixes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:29:10 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>
CC:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...et.ru>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Linux kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH 0/2] i386: espfix fixes

Alexander van Heukelum wrote:
> 
> On http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0608.0/0162.html:
>>>> - .quad 0x0000920000000000 /* 0xd0 - ESPFIX 16-bit SS */
>>>> + .quad 0x00cf92000000ffff /* 0xd0 - ESPFIX SS */
>>> Seems a bit dangerous to allow access to full 4GB through this.
>>> Can you tighten the limit any? I suppose not, because the high
>>> bits in %esp really could be anything. But it might be nice to
>>> try setting the limit to regs->esp + THREAD_SIZE. Of course, this
>>> is not strictly necessary, just an extra paranoid protection
>>> mechanism. 
>> Since, when calculating the base, I do &-THREAD_SIZE, I guess the
>> minimal safe limit is regs->esp + THREAD_SIZE*2... Well, may just
>> I not do that please? :) For what, btw? There are no such a things
>> for __KERNEL_DS or anything, so I just don't see the necessity.
> 
> In the normal case user-esp would be between 0 and 65535, and in
> that case the memory range in the ESPFIX stack segment would be
> pretty small. But userspace can set esp to just about anything if
> it really wants to, and in that case the reduction of the memory
> range is pretty much wothless (kernel stacks are allocated way
> above the code). As you said: may we just not do that, please?
> 

Who are "we", here?  First of all, this is about a 16-bit stack segment,
right?  Why are we doing a 4 GB limit at all if this is a 16-bit stack
segment (where the stack can only be touched for the first 64K even if a
stack operation happens)?

I clearly don't quite understand at a glance what is going on.
	
	-hpa

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/