linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] x86/entry/pti: don't switch PGD on when pti

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, 10 Jan 2018 12:04:25 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] x86/entry/pti: don't switch PGD on when
 pti_disable is set

On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> I really dislike state that isn't cleared on execve().  I'm assuming
>> that this is so you can run time pwn_me_without_pti whatever?  Surely
>> LD_PRELOAD can do this, too?
>
> Andy, what the hell is wrong with you?
>
> You are actively trying to screw this whole interface up, aren't you?
>
> LD_PRELOAD cannot work for a wrapper, for the simple reason that it
> runs in the same context as the process. So if you want to say "I want
> to run this process without PTI", but you don't want to run the
> process with elevated privileges, LD_PRELOAD doesn't work.

Oh, right, duh.  Brain was off.

> The "let's do it per thread" made no sense either, since that's
> fundamentally not how page tables work, and it's complete broken shit.

I still disagree with you here.  The whole concept of per-thread or
per-mm or per-whatever PTI disablement is if the admin for some reason
trusts some piece of code not to try to exploit Meltdown.  But just
imagine a program like a web browser.  The browser will do some
performance critical stuff (networking) and some
absolutely-no-fucking-way-would-I-turn-off-PTI stuff (running
scripts).  So per-thread seems totally sensible to me.  No one sane
would ever do this for a web browser, but I can easily imagine it for
something like a web *server* or even a database server.

Just logically, too, per-thread is the obvious semantics.  Whether we
rewrite CR3 when we go to usermode is a thing affecting that thread.
The only reason the mm has anything to do with it is the NX trick.