linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] x86_64,entry: Filter RFLAGS.NT on entry from userspace

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: <5432C65C.4040406@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Oct 2014 09:42:04 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC:	Sebastian Lackner <sebastian@...-team.de>,
	Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] x86_64,entry: Filter RFLAGS.NT on entry from userspace

On 10/01/2014 12:49 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> The NT flag doesn't do anything in long mode other than causing IRET
>> to #GP.  Oddly, CPL3 code can still set NT using popf.
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * Sysenter doesn't filter flags, so we need to clear NT
>> +        * ourselves.  To save a few cycles, we can check whether
>> +        * NT was set instead of doing an unconditional popfq.
>> +        */
>> +       testl $X86_EFLAGS_NT,EFLAGS(%rsp)       /* saved EFLAGS match cpu */
>> +       jnz sysenter_fix_flags
>> +sysenter_flags_fixed:
>> +
> 
> Because this thread hasn't gone on long enough:
> 
> Do we need to clear IOPL here, too?  With patch 2 applied, an IOPL !=
> 0 program can leak IOPL into another task.  It should be cleared on
> iret, sysexit (via popf) and sysret (directly), so this shouldn't
> matter.  Am I missing something?
> 
> Adding IOPL to the test will add no overhead for non-iopl-using tasks,
> but it will slighly slow down 32-bit tasks that use iopl.
> 

I don't see why.  IOPL has no effect in the kernel.

	-hpa


--
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/