linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64,entry: Filter RFLAGS.NT on entry from userspace

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:	Wed, 1 Oct 2014 01:21:23 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc:	Sebastian Lackner <sebastian@...-team.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64,entry: Filter RFLAGS.NT on entry from
 userspace

On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> It would certainly be possible to clear NT and retry IRET if IRET
> >> fails with NT set.  This would have no overhead for anything relevant.
> >> That would be this alternative from my 0/2 email:
> >>
> >>  - Don't filter NT on sysenter.  Instead, filter it on EFI entry
> >>    and modify the IRET code to retry without NT set if NT was set.
> >>
> >> Thomas hpa, etc: any thoughts?
> >
> > Filter it right away. That's solid and obvious. Anything else is just
> > complex and prone for future brown paperbag failures.
> 
> Yeah, agreed.  That's exactly what these patches do, although, if you
> put them in -tip and want to keep the stable CC, it's probably worth
> fixing the address (oops).

Even more oops as you failed to update it in your reply again ....
 
> > We get the context switch benefit from it, so there is some
> > compensation for the extra cycles.
> 
> If we ever want those cycles back, I bet that the compat sysenter path
> could be trimmed down a lot.  For example, I think that all of the
> zero-extension stuff is unnecessary now that we have the magic syscall
> wrappers for all (?) syscalls.

Emphasis on "(?)". So yes, once we verified that ....

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/