linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel

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: <CALCETrU34B6XMmxcN2ix1bhnPFVRp5vNjyjxXMGYiOERZD483A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 May 2014 19:39:31 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:27 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 17:53 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> If there's an NMI on the stack, we must use `RET` until we're ready
>> to re-enabled NMIs.
>
> I'm a little confused by NMI on the stack. Do you mean NMI on the target
> stack? If so, please state that.

I mean that if we're in an NMI handler or in anything nested inside it.


>>   * We can add a per-cpu variable `nmi_mce_nest_count` that is nonzero
>>     whenever an NMI or MCE is on the stack.  We'll increment it at the
>>     very beginning of the NMI handler and clear it at the very end.
>>     We will also increment it in `do_machine_check` before doing
>>     anything that can cause an interrupt.  The result is that the only
>>     interrupt that can happen with `nmi_mce_nest_count == 0` in NMI
>>     context is an MCE at the beginning or end of the NMI handler.
>
> Just note that this will probably be done in the C code, as NMI has
> issues with gs being safe.
>
> Also, should we call it "nmi" specifically. Perhaps
> "ist_stack_nest_count", stating that the stack is ist to match
> do_machine_check as well? Maybe that's not a good name either. Someone
> else can come up with something that's a little more generic than NMI?

So the issue here is that we can have an NMI followed immediately by
an MCE.  The MCE code can call force_sig, which could plausibly result
in a kprobe or something similar happening.  The return from that
needs to use IRET.

Since I don't see a clean way to reliably detect that we're inside an
NMI, I propose instead detecting when we're in *either* NMI or MCE,
hence the name.  As long as we mark do_machine_check and whatever asm
code calls it __kprobes, I think we'll be okay.

--Andy
--
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/