linux-kernel - [PATCH 8/8] x86, microcode, intel: correct extended signature checksum verification

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: <1406146251-8540-9-git-send-email-hmh@hmh.eng.br>
Date:	Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:10:51 -0300
From:	Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: [PATCH 8/8] x86, microcode, intel: correct extended signature checksum verification

We have been calculating the checksum for extended signatures in a way that
is very likely to be incompatible with the Intel public documention.  This
code dates back to 2003, when the support for the "new microcode format"
was added to the driver by Intel itself.

The extended signature table should be deleted when an extended signature
is "applied" to the main microcode patch if the Intel SDM is to be believed
(Intel 64 and IA32 Software Developers Manual, vol 3A, page 9-30, entry for
"Checksum[n]" in table 9-6).  Deleting the extended signature table changes
the Total Size of the microcode, and that reflects in the checksum that
should be in the extended signature entry if it is to be used unmodified to
replace the main microcode signature.

It is worth noting that deleting the extended signature table results in a
microcode patch that violates the rule that the Total Size field must be a
multiple of 1024, and it is impossible to add any padding to fix that.

This patch changes the extended signature table checksum verification
code to accept both ways of calculating the extended signature checksum
as valid.

Signed-off-by: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_lib.c |   16 ++++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_lib.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_lib.c
index 050cd4f..c75f03a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_lib.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel_lib.c
@@ -135,9 +135,21 @@ int microcode_sanity_check(void *mc, int print_err)
 		sum = orig_sum
 			- (mc_header->sig + mc_header->pf + mc_header->cksum)
 			+ (ext_sig->sig + ext_sig->pf + ext_sig->cksum);
-		if (sum) {
+		/*
+		 * accept two possibilities for the extended signature entry
+		 * checksum: the one we've been using since 2003 (which is
+		 * likely incorrect), as well as the one described in the
+		 * Intel SDM vol 3A (order #253668-051US, June 2014), table
+		 * 9-6, entry for Checksum[n] at page 9-30.
+		 *
+		 * When one deletes the extended signature table as the Intel
+		 * SDM mandates, total_size decreases by ext_table_size, and
+		 * so does the checksum, leaving a remainder equal to
+		 * ext_table_size in sum.
+		 */
+		if (sum != 0 && sum != ext_table_size) {
 			if (print_err)
-				pr_err("aborting, bad checksum\n");
+				pr_err("aborting, bad extended signature checksum\n");
 			return -EINVAL;
 		}
 	}
-- 
1.7.10.4

--
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/