linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*

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: <5357F572.1030804@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:16:34 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@...il.com>
CC:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*

On 04/23/2014 10:08 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> The only way I can see to trigger the race is with sigreturn, but it's
> still there.  Sigh.
> 

I don't see why sigreturn needs to be involved... all you need is
modify_ldt() on one CPU while the other is in the middle of an IRET
return.  Small window, so hard to hit, but still.

> 2. I've often pondered changing the way we return *to* CPL 0 to bypass
> iret entirely.  It could be something like:
> 
> SS
> RSP
> EFLAGS
> CS
> RIP
> 
> push 16($rsp)
> popfq [does this need to force rex.w somehow?]
> ret $64

When you say return to CPL 0 you mean intra-kernel return?  That isn't
really the problem here, though.  I think this will also break the
kernel debugger since it will have the wrong behavior for TF and RF.

>>> The other question I have is - is there any reason we can't fix up the
>>> IRET to do a 32bit return into a vsyscall type userspace page which then
>>> does a long jump or retf to the right place ?
>>
>> I did a writeup on this a while ago.  It does have the problem that you
>> need additional memory in userspace, which is per-thread and in the
>> right region of userspace; this pretty much means you have to muck about
>> with the user space stack when user space is running in weird modes.
>> This gets complex very quickly and does have some "footprint".
>> Furthermore, on some CPUs (not including any recent Intel CPUs) there is
>> still a way to leak bits [63:32].  I believe the in-kernel solution is
>> actually simpler.
>>
> 
> There's also no real guarantee that user code won't unmap the vdso.

There is, but there is also at some point a "don't do that, then" aspect
to it all.

	-hpa


--
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/