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]

Message-ID: <55BB3F71.1060307@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:27:13 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Dealing with the NMI mess



On 31/07/2015 10:03, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> $ ./icebp
> Trace/breakpoint trap
> 
> ^ this in qemu.

Is the strace different between KVM and baremetal?  QEMU dynamic
translation is broken I think, but KVM should be the same as baremetal.

>> Fortunately, it looks like the vm86 case is correct (or as correct as
>> any of the vm86 junk can be), although I haven't tested it.  I bet
>> that icebp is like int3 in that it punches through vm86 mode instead
>> of sending #GP.
> 
> Yeah, INT 1. I wonder whether INT 1, i.e. CD imm8 does the same thing.

No, it sends #GP.

> But why do you say it is special - it simply raises #DB, i.e. vector 1.
> Web page seems to say so when interrupt redirection is disabled. It
> sounds like a nice and quick way to generate a breakpoint. You can do
> that with INT 01, i.e., the CD opcode, too.
> 
> If I'd had to guess, it isn't documented because of the proprietary ICE
> aspect. And no one uses ICEs anymore so it is going to be forgotten with
> people popping off and on and asking about the undocumented opcode.

The reason why it isn't documented is probably hidden within Intel.
Besides ICEBP, which is a bit fringe, there's no reason not to document
SALC which Thomas mentioned.  SALC all has been there since the 8086,
and has been undocumented for thirty-odd years.

The AAM/AAD variants with immediates other than 10 also have been
undocumented for fifteen years or so (an instruction doing a division by
10 where the second byte of the opcode is 10? oh, certainly no one is
going to try changing the second byte...)

Paolo
--
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/