linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*

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

Date:	Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:33:00 -0700
From:	Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@...il.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:10 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Honestly, guys... you're painting the bikeshed at the moment.
>
> Initialization is the easiest bit of all this code.  The tricky part is
> *the rest of the code*, i.e. the stuff in entry_64.S.

That's because the initialization code is much simpler, so it's easy
to pick on :)  Sorry.

For the espfix_adjust_stack thing, when can it actually need to do
anything?  irqs should be off, I think, and MCE, NMI, and debug
exceptions use ist, so that leaves just #SS and #GP, I think.  How can
those actually occur?  Is there a way to trigger them deliberately
from userspace?  Why do you have three espfix_adjust_stack

What happens on the IST entries?  If I've read your patch right,
you're still switching back to the normal stack, which looks
questionable.

Also, if you want to same some register abuse on each exception entry,
could you check the saved RIP instead of the current RSP?  I.e. use
the test instruction with offset(%rsp)?  Maybe there are multiple
possible values, though, and just testing some bits doesn't help.

--Andy
--
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/