linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v1] arm64: Handle traps from accessing CNTVCT/CNTFRQ for CONFIG

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, 17 Jan 2018 23:35:08 +0000
From:   Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
To:     Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, mark.rutland@....com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com, oleg@...hat.com,
        cdall@...aro.org, tbaicar@...eaurora.org, julien.thierry@....com,
        Dave.Martin@....com, james.morse@....com,
        ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org, xiexiuqi@...wei.com, mingo@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        nd@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1] arm64: Handle traps from accessing CNTVCT/CNTFRQ
 for CONFIG_COMPAT

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 12:41:56 -0800
Nicolin Chen <nicoleotsuka@...il.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 09:03:48AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> 
> > > So ignoring a condition for a Thumb instruction may cause its IT
> > > scope shifting. For ARM mode, the only penalty could be two Rts
> > > getting written -- which shouldn't corrupt userspace execution.
> > > 
> > > Please correct me if I am wrong or not thorough.  
> > 
> > Consider the following:
> > 	
> > 	mov	r0, #0
> > 	mov	r1, #0
> > 	cmp	r1, #3
> > 	mrrceq	r0, r1, cntvct // simplified version
> > 
> > Oh look, you've corrupted r0 and r1, which should never have be
> > changed. Whatever uses the content r0 and r1 after the mrrc will
> > misbehave. How is that an acceptable behaviour? How do you expect
> > userspace to cope with such a brain damage?
> > 
> > If you intend to emulate the CPU, you must emulate it fully, to the
> > letter of the architecture. No ifs, no buts.  
> 
> Thanks for the explain. I see the point here.
> 
> I saw your version for arm64 compat doesn't check if (rt != 31)
> as MRS handler does. Is there any reason for that?

Um, perhaps because it's *compat*? How do you envision an AArch32
MR{R}C instruction targeting r31, exactly? ;)

Robin.