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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:56:22 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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 8:46 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> 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?

The false positives only matter for very strange workloads, e.g.
vsyscall=native with old libc.  If it's a measurable regression, we
could revert it.

--Andy
--
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/