[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1438893498-17157-8-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 13:37:32 -0700
From: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>,
Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.13.y-ckt 07/53] x86/nmi/64: Reorder nested NMI checks
3.13.11-ckt25 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
commit a27507ca2d796cfa8d907de31ad730359c8a6d06 upstream.
Check the repeat_nmi .. end_repeat_nmi special case first. The next
patch will rework the RSP check and, as a side effect, the RSP check
will no longer detect repeat_nmi .. end_repeat_nmi, so we'll need
this ordering of the checks.
Note: this is more subtle than it appears. The check for repeat_nmi
.. end_repeat_nmi jumps straight out of the NMI code instead of
adjusting the "iret" frame to force a repeat. This is necessary,
because the code between repeat_nmi and end_repeat_nmi sets "NMI
executing" and then writes to the "iret" frame itself. If a nested
NMI comes in and modifies the "iret" frame while repeat_nmi is also
modifying it, we'll end up with garbage. The old code got this
right, as does the new code, but the new code is a bit more
explicit.
If we were to move the check right after the "NMI executing" check,
then we'd get it wrong and have random crashes.
This is a prerequisite for the fix for CVE-2015-3291.
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
[bwh: Backported to 4.0: adjust filename, spacing]
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
Acked-by: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
Acked-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Signed-off-by: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S | 34 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
index 1283ccf..e70afa4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S
@@ -1869,7 +1869,24 @@ ENTRY(nmi)
/*
* Determine whether we're a nested NMI.
*
- * First check "NMI executing". If it's set, then we're nested.
+ * If we interrupted kernel code between repeat_nmi and
+ * end_repeat_nmi, then we are a nested NMI. We must not
+ * modify the "iret" frame because it's being written by
+ * the outer NMI. That's okay: the outer NMI handler is
+ * about to about to call do_nmi anyway, so we can just
+ * resume the outer NMI.
+ */
+
+ movq $repeat_nmi, %rdx
+ cmpq 8(%rsp), %rdx
+ ja 1f
+ movq $end_repeat_nmi, %rdx
+ cmpq 8(%rsp), %rdx
+ ja nested_nmi_out
+1:
+
+ /*
+ * Now check "NMI executing". If it's set, then we're nested.
* This will not detect if we interrupted an outer NMI just
* before IRET.
*/
@@ -1896,21 +1913,6 @@ ENTRY(nmi)
nested_nmi:
/*
- * If we interrupted an NMI that is between repeat_nmi and
- * end_repeat_nmi, then we must not modify the "iret" frame
- * because it's being written by the outer NMI. That's okay:
- * the outer NMI handler is about to call do_nmi anyway,
- * so we can just resume the outer NMI.
- */
- movq $repeat_nmi, %rdx
- cmpq 8(%rsp), %rdx
- ja 1f
- movq $end_repeat_nmi, %rdx
- cmpq 8(%rsp), %rdx
- ja nested_nmi_out
-
-1:
- /*
* Modify the "iret" frame to point to repeat_nmi, forcing another
* iteration of NMI handling.
*/
--
1.9.1
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists