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  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]
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 14:54:40 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <>
Cc:	Richard Weinberger <>, X86 ML <>,
	Toralf Förster <>,
	Eric Paris <>,
	Linux Kernel <>
Subject: Re: 3.15: kernel BUG at kernel/auditsc.c:1525!

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 2:48 PM, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
> On 06/16/2014 02:35 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> To hpa, etc:  It appears that entry_32.S is missing any call to the
>> audit exit hook on the badsys path.  If I'm diagnosing this bug report
>> correctly, this causes OOPSes.
>> The the world at large: it's increasingly apparent that no one (except
>> maybe the blackhats) has ever scrutinized the syscall auditing code.
>> This is two old severe bugs in the code that have probably been there
>> for a long time.
> Yes, the audit code is a total mess.
>> The bad syscall nr paths are their own incomprehensible route
>> through the entry control flow.  Rearrange them to work just like
>> syscalls that return -ENOSYS.
> I have to admit... it sort of lends itself to a solution like this:
>         /* For the 64-bit case, analogous code for 32 bits */
>         movl $__NR_syscall_max+1,%ecx   # *Not* __NR_syscall_max
>         cmpq %rcx,%rax
>         cmovae %rcx,%rax
>         movq %r10,%rcx
>         call *sys_call_table(,%rax,8)
> ... and having an extra (invalid) system call slot in the syscall table
> beyond the end instead of branching off separately.
> (Note: we could use either cmova or cmovae, and either the 32- or 64-bit
> form... the reason why is left as an exercise to the reader.)

For 64-bit, I want to do this instead:

I see no reason why the 64-bit badsys code needs its own code path at
all.  I haven't sent it yet because AFAICT it doesn't fix any bug, and
the series it's a part of isn't ready.

I'm also contemplating rewriting the 64-bit syscall entry work path in C.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists