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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 21 May 2014 16:07:18 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86_64: A real proposal for iret-less return to kernel

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 03:39:11PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> But if we get a new MCE in here, it will be an MCE from kernel context
>> and it's fatal. So, yes, we'll clobber the stack, but we'll never
>> return (unless tolerant is set to something insane), so who cares?
>
> Remember that machine checks are broadcast.  So some other cpu
> can hit a recoverable machine check in user mode ... but that int#18
> goes everywhere.  Other cpus are innocent bystanders ... they will
> see MCG_STATUS.RIPV=1, MCG_STATUS.EIPV=0 and nothing important
> in any of their machine check banks.
>
> But if we are still finishing off processing the previous machine check,
> this will be a nested one - and BOOM, we are dead.

Oh.  Well, crap.

FWIW, this means that there really is a problem if one of these #MC
errors hits an innocent bystander who just happens to be handling an
NMI, at least if we delete the nested NMI code.  But I think my
simplified proposal gets this right.

>
> -Tony
>
> [If you peer closely at the latest edition of the SDM - you'll see the
> bits are defined for a non-broadcast model ... e.g. LMCE_S bit in
> MCG_STATUS .... but currently shipping silicon doesn't use that]



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/