linux-kernel - Re: Dealing with the NMI mess

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:	Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:38:33 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with the NMI mess

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
> 2. Forbid IRET inside NMIs.  Doable but maybe not that pretty.
>
> We haven't considered:
>
> 3. Forbid faults (other than MCE) inside NMI.

I'd really prefer #2. #3 depends on us getting many things right, and
never introducing new cases in the future.

#2, in contrast, seems to be fairly localized. Yes, RF is an issue,
but returning to user space with RF clear doesn't really seem to be
all that problematic.

The point of RF is to make forward progress in the face of debug
register faults, but I don't see what was wrong with the whole
"disable any debug events that happen with interrupts disabled".

And no, I do *not* believe that we should disable debug faults ahead
of time. We should take them, disable them, and return with 'ret'. No
complex "you can't put breakpoints in this region" crap, no magic
rules, no subtle issues.

I really think your "disallow #DB" is pointless. I think your "prevent
instruction breakpoints in NMI" is wrong. Let them happen. Take them
and disable them. Return with RT clear. Go on with your life.

And the "take them and disable them" is really simple. No "am I in an
NMI contect" thing (because that leads to the whole question about
"what is NMI context"). That's not the real rule anyway.

No, make it very simple and straightforward. Make the test be "uhhuh,
I got a #DB in kernel mode, and interrupts were disabled - I know I'm
going to return with "ret", so I'm just going to have to disable this
breakpoint".

Nothing clever. Nothing subtle. Nothing that needs "this range of
instructions is magical". No.  Just a very simple rule: if the context
we return to is kernel mode and interrupts are disabled, we're using
'ret', so we cannot suppress debug faults.

Did I miss something? There were a lot of emails flying around, but I
*thought* I saw them all..

              Linus
--
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/