linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86: narrow out of bounds syscalls to sys

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 17:23:45 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86: narrow out of bounds syscalls to sys_read
 under speculation

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> Should we go with array_element_nospec() in the meantime? So we're not
> depending on jump labels? With the constraint fix and killing that
> superfluous AND the assembly is now:
>
>      e26:       48 81 fd 4d 01 00 00    cmp    $0x14d,%rbp
>      e2d:       48 19 d2                sbb    %rdx,%rdx
>                         NR_syscalls);
>         if (likely(call))
>      e30:       48 21 d0                and    %rdx,%rax
>      e33:       74 1e                   je     e53 <do_syscall_64+0x73>
>                 regs->ax = (*call)(regs->di, regs->si, regs->dx,
>      e35:       48 8b 4b 38             mov    0x38(%rbx),%rcx
>      e39:       48 8b 53 60             mov    0x60(%rbx),%rdx
>      e3d:       48 8b 73 68             mov    0x68(%rbx),%rsi
>      e41:       48 8b 7b 70             mov    0x70(%rbx),%rdi
>      e45:       4c 8b 4b 40             mov    0x40(%rbx),%r9
>      e49:       4c 8b 43 48             mov    0x48(%rbx),%r8
>      e4d:       ff 10                   callq  *(%rax)

That looks fairly optimal, except for the fact that the callq is
through a register.

Of course, that register-indirect calling convention is forced on us
by retpoline anyway (which you don't have enabled, likely because of a
lack of compiler). But without retpoline that callq could be

         callq  sys_call_table(,%rax,8)

if the masking is done on the index (and if the conditional jump had
been done on the cmp rather than the later 'and').

Instead, you have a

        leaq    sys_call_table(,%rbp,8),%rax

hiding somewhere earlier that doesn't show in your asm snippet.

Oh well. We'll have an extra instruction however we do this. I guess
that's just something we'll have to live with. No more bikeshedding..

            Linus