linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/64: better check for canonical address

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK1hOcMbp6euyB8BvnSVdHaHSvd=N5871G_WozYro9=E46EZpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Mar 2015 23:46:11 +0200
From:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/asm/entry/64: better check for canonical address

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 11:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Denys Vlasenko
> <vda.linux@...glemail.com> wrote:
>> The instruction would need a differentiator whether returned-to code
>> is 64-bit or 32-bit.
>> Then it probably can use the same approach SYSRET{O,L} uses:
>> with REX.W, return is to 64-bit; without it, return is to 32-bit.
>>
>> Interrupt return then can check pt_regs->cs and use
>> IRETL_FAST if it is USER32_CS; use IRETQ_FAST if it is USER_CS
>> or KERNEL_CS; otherwise, fall back to slow but "universal" IRETQ.

Hmm. In fact since we'd need such checks, then instructions
can be even simpler: they don't even need to check CPL,
it can be hardcoded too. We'd need four instructions then:
return to 64 and to 32 bits, to CPL0 and to CPL3.


>> Do we have contacts at Intel to petition for this? :D
>
> Some of us do and have petitioned :)

And what did Intel say?

If there's any interest in doing this, Intel better *do* talk to us
before they commit to implementing it. Their track record
in implementing "fast syscalls" is nothing to write home about.
SYSENTER is a design disaster; SYSRET is buggy.
--
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/