| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 10:28:09 +0100 From: Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com> To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: ia32_sysenter_target does not preserve EFLAGS Hi, Beware that could be opening the door to information leaks for a very small gain (most syscalls are not getuid). Best, OG. On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 1:34 AM, Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Apparently, users *don't* depend on arithmetic flags >>> to survive over syscall. They also okay with DF flag >>> being cleared. >> >> Generally, users probably dont' care about many registers at all being >> saved, but it's worth noting that the reason system calls save/restore >> even caller-saved registers is at least partly in order to avoid any >> kernel information leaks. >> >> I don't believe that user mode will ever reasonably care about the >> arithmetic flags being changed, but at the same time I also don't it >> is something we should ever consider a "feature" we should try to take >> advantage of. Generally we should try to not mess with the flag state, >> and I'd *much* rather make the rule be that all the system call return >> paths restore flags as much as possible. > > "We don't clobber anything" ABI has its appeal. > OTOH, fulfilling ABI's promises has cost which hast to be paid > on every syscall, regardless whether userspace needed it or not. > > Example. This is the uclibc implementation of write(): > > 00000000004acfc4 <__libc_write>: > 4acfc4: 53 push %rbx > 4acfc5: 48 63 ff movslq %edi,%rdi > 4acfc8: b8 01 00 00 00 mov $0x1,%eax > 4acfcd: 0f 05 syscall > 4acfcf: 48 89 c3 mov %rax,%rbx > 4acfd2: 48 81 fb 00 f0 ff ff cmp $0xfffffffffffff000,%rbx > 4acfd9: 76 0f jbe 4acfea <__libc_write+0x26> > 4acfdb: e8 64 15 00 00 callq 4ae544 <__GI___errno_location> > 4acfe0: 89 da mov %ebx,%edx > 4acfe2: f7 da neg %edx > 4acfe4: 89 10 mov %edx,(%rax) > 4acfe6: 48 83 c8 ff or $0xffffffffffffffff,%rax > 4acfea: 5b pop %rbx > 4acfeb: c3 retq > > This is a C function. Therefore any its caller assumes that C-clobbered > registers can be, indeed, clobbered here, so if that caller uses any > of them, it saves/restores them. > > All efforts by kernel code to save/restore C-clobbered registers, > eight of them, are in vain. It's just useless work. Userspace > does not benefit from that effort. > > If our syscall ABI would say that those regs are not preserved, > we could have a bit faster syscalls. Any userspace code which > really had to have those registers preserved across a particular > syscall, could push/pop them itself. > -- > 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/ -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists