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: <CALCETrXBYyPVww_0nE1A5JLZFebvWZSx9gsqrres=+dEtuRmsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:56:16 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	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 Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...ux-mips.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2015, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> >  These are all implementation-specific details, including the INT1
>> > instruction, which is why I am not at all surprised that they are omitted
>> > from architecture manuals.
>>
>> That bit is BS, though.  The INT1 instruction, executed in user mode
>> (CPL3) with no hardware debugger attached, will enter the kernel
>> through a gate at vector 1, *even if that gate has DPL == 0*.
>>
>> If there's an instruction that bypasses hardware protection
>> mechanisms, then Intel should document it rather than relying on OS
>> writers to know enough folklore to get it right.
>>
>> Heck, SDM Volume 3 6.12.1.1 says "The processor checks the DPL of the
>> interrupt or trap gate only if an exception or interrupt is generated
>> with an INT n, INT 3, or INTO instruction."  It does not say "the
>> processor does not check the DPL of the interrupt or trap gate if the
>> exception or interrupt is generated with the undocumented ICEBP
>> instruction."
>
>  It does not have to be mentioned, because it's implied by how the #DB
> exception is propagated: regardless of its origin it never checks the DPL.
> And user-mode software may well use POPF at any time to set the TF bit in
> the flags register to the same effect, so the OS needs to be prepared for
> a #DB exception it hasn't scheduled itself anyway.

Not really.

int $1 checks DPL.  Setting TF results in saved TF set and the
corresponding bit in DR6 set as well.  Triggering a #DB using the
debug registers requires active OS help.

So operating systems need to handle a #DB without no indicated cause
without spewing warnings or crashing, and there is no indication
whatsoever in the SDM or APM that this is the case.

--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/