[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <535AD19D.8000502@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:20:29 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Andy Lutomirski <amluto@...il.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
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 04/25/2014 05:02 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>
> Just to understand the consequences -- we leak 16 bit of kernel data
> to the userspace, right? Because it is %esp, we know that we leak
> stack address, which is not too sensitive, but will make kernel
> address randomization less useful...?
>
It is rather sensitive, in fact.
>> The 64-bit implementation works like this:
>>
>> Set up a ministack for each CPU, which is then mapped 65536 times
>> using the page tables. This implementation uses the second-to-last
>> PGD slot for this; with a 64-byte espfix stack this is sufficient for
>> 2^18 CPUs (currently we support a max of 2^13 CPUs.)
>
> 16-bit stack segments on 64-bit machine. Who still uses it? Dosemu?
> Wine? Would the solution be to disallow that?
Welcome to the show. We do, in fact disallow it now in the 3.15-rc
series. The Wine guys are complaining.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists