linux-kernel - Re: What exactly do 32-bit x86 exceptions push on the stack in the CS slot?

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Sat, 19 Nov 2016 21:11:58 -0500
From:   Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     tedheadster@...il.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: What exactly do 32-bit x86 exceptions push on the stack in the CS slot?

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> This is a question for the old-timers here, since I can't find
> anything resembling an answer in the SDM.
>
> Suppose an exception happens (#UD in this case, but I assume it
> doesn't really matter).  We're not in long mode, and the IDT is set up
> to deliver to a normal 32-bit kernel code segment.  We're running in
> that very same code segment when the exception hits, so no CPL change
> occurs and the TSS doesn't particularly matter.
>
> The CPU will push EFLAGS, CS, and RIP.  Here's the question: what
> happens to the high word of CS on the stack?
>
> The SDM appears to say nothing at all about this.  Modern systems
> (e.g. my laptop running in 32-bit legacy mode under KVM) appear to
> zero-extend CS.  But Matthew's 486DX appears to put garbage in the
> high bits (or maybe just leave whatever was already on the stack in
> place).
>
> Do any of you happen to know what's going on and when the behavior
> changed?  I'd like to know just how big of a problem this is.  Because
> if lots of CPUs work like Matthew's, we have lots of subtle bugs on
> them.
>
> --Andy

This came up a while back, and we was determined that we can't assume
zero-extension in 32-bit mode because older processors only do a
16-bit write even on a 32-bit push.  So all segments have to be
treated as 16-bit values, or we have to explicitly zero-extend them.

All 64-bit capable processors do zero-extend segments, even in 32-bit mode.

--
Brian Gerst