linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/6] x86: Disabling PTI in compatibility mode

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:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 03:05:45 +0000
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Cc:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/6] x86: Disabling PTI in compatibility mode

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:51 AM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
> Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16/02/2018 00:25, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/15/2018 08:35 AM, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>> I removed the PTI disabling while SMEP is unsupported, although I
>>>>> must admit I did not fully understand why it is required.
>>>> Do you mean you don't fully understand how PTI gives SMEP-like behavior
>>>> on non-SMEP hardware?
>>> No. I understand how it provide SMEP-like behavior, and I understand the value
>>> of SMEP by itself.
>>>
>>> However, I do not understand why SMEP-like protection is required to protect
>>> processes that run in compatibility-mode from Meltdown/Spectre attacks. As
>>> far as I understand, the process should not be able to manipulate the kernel
>>> to execute code in the low 4GB.
>>
>> Being 32bit is itself sufficient protection against Meltdown (as long as
>> there nothing interesting of the kernels mapped below the 4G boundary).
>>
>> However, a 32bit compatibility process try to attack with Spectre/SP2 to
>> redirect speculation back into userspace, at which point (if successful)
>> the pipeline will be speculating in 64bit mode, and Meltdown is back on
>> the table.  SMEP will block this attack vector, irrespective of other
>> SP2 defences the kernel may employ, but a fully SP2-defended kernel
>> doesn't require SMEP to be safe in this case.
>
> Based on Jann Horn’s description of the branch predictor, it basically only
> holds the lowest 31-bits of the target address. There might be a subtle
> problem if the prediction wrapsaround, but excluding this case, I do not see
> how Spectre v2 can be used to jump into running user code.
>

If you can make the *kernel* speculate into user code, you can create
whatever gadget you want.  A 32-bit task can poison the branch
predictor and use this to attack a non-retpolined kernel.