linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: sys: fix potential Spectre v1

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, 18 May 2018 14:04:12 -0500
From:   "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: sys: fix potential Spectre v1



On 05/15/2018 05:57 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 May 2018 22:00:38 -0500 "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> resource can be controlled by user-space, hence leading to a
>>>> potential exploitation of the Spectre variant 1 vulnerability.
>>>>
>>>> This issue was detected with the help of Smatch:
>>>>
>>>> kernel/sys.c:1474 __do_compat_sys_old_getrlimit() warn: potential
>>>> spectre issue 'get_current()->signal->rlim' (local cap)
>>>> kernel/sys.c:1455 __do_sys_old_getrlimit() warn: potential spectre issue
>>>> 'get_current()->signal->rlim' (local cap)
>>>>
>>>> Fix this by sanitizing *resource* before using it to index
>>>> current->signal->rlim
>>>>
>>>> Notice that given that speculation windows are large, the policy is
>>>> to kill the speculation on the first load and not worry if it can be
>>>> completed with a dependent load/store [1].
>>>
>>> hm.  Not my area, but I'm always willing to learn ;)
>>>
>>>> --- a/kernel/sys.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sys.c
>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@
>>>>   #include <asm/io.h>
>>>>   #include <asm/unistd.h>
>>>>
>>>> +/* Hardening for Spectre-v1 */
>>>> +#include <linux/nospec.h>
>>>> +
>>>>   #include "uid16.h"
>>>>
>>>>   #ifndef SET_UNALIGN_CTL
>>>> @@ -1451,6 +1454,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(old_getrlimit, unsigned int, resource,
>>>>      if (resource >= RLIM_NLIMITS)
>>>>              return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> +   resource = array_index_nospec(resource, RLIM_NLIMITS);
>>>>      task_lock(current->group_leader);
>>>>      x = current->signal->rlim[resource];
>>>
>>> Can the speculation proceed past the task_lock()?  Or is the policy to
>>> ignore such happy happenstances even if they are available?
>>
>> Locks are not in the way of speculation. Speculation has almost no limits
>> except serializing instructions. At least they respect the magic AND
>> limitation in array_index_nospec().
> 
> I'd say it another way, because they don't respect the magic AND, we
> just make the result in the speculation path safe. So, it's controlled
> speculation.
> 

Dan,

What do you think about adding the following function to the nospec API:

diff --git a/include/linux/nospec.h b/include/linux/nospec.h
index e791ebc..81e9a77 100644
--- a/include/linux/nospec.h
+++ b/include/linux/nospec.h
@@ -55,4 +55,17 @@ static inline unsigned long 
array_index_mask_nospec(unsigned long index,
                                                                         \
         (typeof(_i)) (_i & _mask);                                      \
  })
+
+
+#ifndef sanitize_index_nospec
+inline bool sanitize_index_nospec(unsigned long index,
+                                 unsigned long size)
+{
+       if (index >= size)
+               return false;
+       index = array_index_nospec(index, size);
+
+       return true;
+}
+#endif
  #endif /* _LINUX_NOSPEC_H */


And here is an example of its use:

diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/tvp7002.c b/drivers/media/i2c/tvp7002.c
index 4599b7e..27b39c0 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/tvp7002.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/tvp7002.c
@@ -35,6 +35,8 @@
  #include <media/v4l2-ctrls.h>
  #include <media/v4l2-fwnode.h>

+#include <linux/nospec.h>
+
  #include "tvp7002_reg.h"

  MODULE_DESCRIPTION("TI TVP7002 Video and Graphics Digitizer driver");
@@ -784,7 +786,7 @@ static int tvp7002_enum_dv_timings(struct 
v4l2_subdev *sd,
                 return -EINVAL;

         /* Check requested format index is within range */
-       if (timings->index >= NUM_TIMINGS)
+       if (!sanitize_index_nospec(timings->index, NUM_TIMINGS))
                 return -EINVAL;

         timings->timings = tvp7002_timings[timings->index].timings;

This patter is very common. So, it may be a good idea to unify both 
bounds checking and the serialization of instructions into a single 
function.

What do you think?

Thanks
--
Gustavo