linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64, asm: Work around AMD SYSRET SS descriptor attribute issue

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: <20150427154631.GB28871@pd.tnic>
Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2015 17:46:31 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64, asm: Work around AMD SYSRET SS descriptor
 attribute issue

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 07:57:36AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> >
> >         /*
> >          * Change top 16 bits to be the sign-extension of 47th bit, if this
> >          * changed %rcx, it was not canonical.
> >          */
> >         ALTERNATIVE "", \
> >                 "shl    $(64 - (47+1)), %rcx; \
> >                  sar    $(64 - (47+1)), %rcx; \
> >                  cmpq   %rcx, %r11; \
> >                  jne    opportunistic_sysret_failed", X86_BUG_SYSRET_CANON_RCX
> 
> Guys, if we're looking at cycles for this, then don't do the "exact
> canonical test". and go back to just doing
> 
>         shr $__VIRTUAL_MASK_SHIFT, %rcx
>         jnz opportunistic_sysret_failed
> 
> which is much smaller.

Right, what about the false positives:

17be0aec74fb ("x86/asm/entry/64: Implement better check for canonical addresses")

? We don't care?

> In fact, aim to make the conditional jump be a
> two-byte one (jump forward to another jump if required - it's a
> slow-path that doesn't matter at *all* for the taken case), and the
> end result is just six bytes. That way you can use alternative to
> replace it with one single noop on AMD.

Well, even with the non-optimal NOPs (we end up with 4 3-byte NOPs and
one single-byte), we're still better than the unconditional JMP I had
there before:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150427143905.GK6774@pd.tnic

(you might want to look at the raw email - marc.info breaks lines)

I'll retest with the F16h NOPs to see whether there's any difference.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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/