linux-kernel - Re: [GIT pull] x86 vdso updates

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]

Message-ID: <20110528153536.GB27104@elte.hu>
Date:	Sat, 28 May 2011 17:35:36 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] x86 vdso updates


* Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:

> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> wrote:
> > 3. Add int 0xcc and use it from vgettimeofday.  It will SIGSEGV if
> > called from a user address (so it has no risk of ever becoming ABI)
> > and it will do gettimeofday if called from the right address.  (I like
> > 0xcc better than 0x81 because then I don't have to wonder whether any
> > syscall-like instructions start with 0x81.)  I'm not convinced that
> > the existing syscall entries are usable, because syscall itself has a
> > different calling convention and int 0x80 is a compat syscall.
> >
> 
> I started looking at what needs to be done and I wanted to get your
> opinion before I wrote a bunch of code that you'd reject.  Here are
> three ideas for how the int 0xcc / int 0x81 entry could work:
> 
> *** Idea 1 ***
> 
> Make it a real syscall but with extra constraints.  It would have the
> same calling convention as the syscall instruction, but it would turn
> into SIGKILL if the calling address isn't in the VSYSCALL page or if
> the syscall number isn't __NR_clock_gettimeofday.  It would BUG() if
> called from kernel mode.  There are two ways to implement this:
> 
> 1. Have the interrupt entry check constraints, twiddle its stack frame
> to look like a syscall instruction, and jump to the syscall entry.
> This way there's little code duplication.  (Is it safe to sysret back
> to userspace from an interrupt gate?  I don't see why not, but it
> seems to violate the spirit of the thing.)

Yeah, i think it should be safe. Lets try this? It looks like the 
simplest variant.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/