linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86 : Ensure X86_FLAGS

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: <20140926170041.700f44bd@as>
Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:00:41 -0500
From:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>
To:	Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, sebastian@...-team.de,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 : Ensure X86_FLAGS_NT is cleared on syscall entry

On Thu, 25 Sep 2014 12:42:51 -0700
Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com> wrote:

> The MSR_SYSCALL_MASK, which is responsible for clearing specific EFLAGS on
>  syscall entry, should also clear the nested task (NT) flag to be safe from
>  userspace injection. Without this fix the application segmentation
>  faults on syscall return because of the changed meaning of the IRET
>  instruction.
> 
> Further details can be seen here https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33275
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Lackner <sebastian@...-team.de>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> index e4ab2b4..3126558 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> @@ -1184,7 +1184,7 @@ void syscall_init(void)
>  	/* Flags to clear on syscall */
>  	wrmsrl(MSR_SYSCALL_MASK,
>  	       X86_EFLAGS_TF|X86_EFLAGS_DF|X86_EFLAGS_IF|
> -	       X86_EFLAGS_IOPL|X86_EFLAGS_AC);
> +	       X86_EFLAGS_IOPL|X86_EFLAGS_AC|X86_EFLAGS_NT);
>  }
>  
>  /*

I don't get it. Why isn't this patch acceptable, at least on x86-64
where NT is never valid?

Bueller?

--
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/