linux-kernel - Re: [v6 PATCH 10/21] x86/insn-eval: Do not use R/EBP as base if mod in ModRM is zero

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, 26 Apr 2017 18:29:59 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.org>,
        Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-msdos@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
        Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 10/21] x86/insn-eval: Do not use R/EBP as base if mod
 in ModRM is zero

On Fri, 2017-04-21 at 12:52 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 04:32:43PM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > Section 2.2.1.3 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software
> > Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when the mod part of the ModRM
> > byte is zero and R/EBP is specified in the R/M part of such bit, the value
> > of the aforementioned register should not be used in the address
> > computation. Instead, a 32-bit displacement is expected. The instruction
> > decoder takes care of setting the displacement to the expected value.
> > Returning -EDOM signals callers that they should ignore the value of such
> > register when computing the address encoded in the instruction operands.
> > 
> > Also, callers should exercise care to correctly interpret this particular
> > case. In IA-32e 64-bit mode, the address is given by the displacement plus
> > the value of the RIP. In IA-32e compatibility mode, the value of EIP is
> > ignored. This correction is done for our insn_get_addr_ref.
> > 
> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>
> > Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
> > Cc: Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
> > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > Cc: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> > Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> > Cc: Ravi V. Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
> > Cc: x86@...nel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c b/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> > index cda6c71..ea10b03 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/lib/insn-eval.c
> > @@ -250,6 +250,14 @@ static int get_reg_offset(struct insn *insn, struct pt_regs *regs,
> >  	switch (type) {
> >  	case REG_TYPE_RM:
> >  		regno = X86_MODRM_RM(insn->modrm.value);
> > +		/* if mod=0, register R/EBP is not used in the address
> > +		 * computation. Instead, a 32-bit displacement is expected;
> > +		 * the instruction decoder takes care of reading such
> > +		 * displacement. This is true for both R/EBP and R13, as the
> > +		 * REX.B bit is not decoded.
> > +		 */
> 
> I'd simply write here: "ModRM.mod == 0 and ModRM.rm == 5 means a 32-bit
> displacement is following."

I will shorten the comment.
> 
> In addition, kernel comments style is:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * A sentence ending with a full-stop.
> 	 * Another sentence. ...
> 	 * More sentences. ...
> 	 */

... and use the correct style. I feel bad I missed this one.
> 
> > +		if (regno == 5 && X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value) == 0)
> > +			return -EDOM;
> 
> 	if (X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value) == 0 &&
> 	    X86_MODRM_RM(insn->modrm.value)  == 5)
> 
> looks more understandable to me.

Should I go with !(X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value)) as you suggested in
other patches?

> 
> >  		if (X86_REX_B(insn->rex_prefix.value))
> >  			regno += 8;
> >  		break;
> > @@ -599,9 +607,22 @@ void __user *insn_get_addr_ref(struct insn *insn, struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  			eff_addr = base + indx * (1 << X86_SIB_SCALE(sib));
> >  		} else {
> >  			addr_offset = get_reg_offset(insn, regs, REG_TYPE_RM);
> > -			if (addr_offset < 0)
> > +			/* -EDOM means that we must ignore the address_offset.
> > +			 * The only case in which we see this value is when
> > +			 * R/M points to R/EBP. In such a case, in 64-bit mode
> > +			 * the effective address is relative to tho RIP.
> 
> s/tho//

Will correct.
> 
> > +			 */
> 
> Kernel comments style is:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * A sentence ending with a full-stop.
> 	 * Another sentence. ...
> 	 * More sentences. ...
> 	 */
> 

Will correct.
> > +			if (addr_offset == -EDOM) {
> > +				eff_addr = 0;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +				if (user_64bit_mode(regs))
> > +					eff_addr = (long)regs->ip;
> 
> Is regs->ip the rIP of the *following* insn?

No this is a bug. This should be regs->ip + insn.length.
> 
> > +#endif
> 
> You can do this in a prepatch and then get rid of the ifdeffery here:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> index 2b5d686ea9f3..f6239273c5f1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> @@ -115,9 +115,9 @@ static inline int v8086_mode(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  #endif
>  }
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>  static inline bool user_64bit_mode(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>  #ifndef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
>  	/*
>  	 * On non-paravirt systems, this is the only long mode CPL 3
> @@ -128,6 +128,9 @@ static inline bool user_64bit_mode(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	/* Headers are too twisted for this to go in paravirt.h. */
>  	return regs->cs == __USER_CS || regs->cs == pv_info.extra_user_64bit_cs;
>  #endif
> +#else /* !CONFIG_X86_64 */
> +	return false;
> +#endif
>  }

This look nice. I will add this pre-patch.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo