linux-kernel - Re: STI architectural question (and lretq -- I'm not even kidding)

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 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, 23 Jul 2014 17:23:11 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: STI architectural question (and lretq -- I'm not even kidding)

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 08:12:32AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> How are we supposed to survive two machine checks in rapid succession?
> The second will fire as soon as the first one is acked, I imagine.
> Unless we switch stacks before acking the MCE, the return address of
> the first one will be lost.

Oh, that might not fly but in that case the box probably deserves to die
anyway.

I was adressing what you said earlier: "But here's the problem: what
happens if an NMI or MCE happens between the sti and the lretq? I think
an MCE just might be okay -- it's not really recoverable anyway."

An MC Exception can be recoverable and we can recover. The fact that we
raise an exception doesn't always mean we die.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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/