linux-kernel - Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/entry/32: Add an ASM_CLAC to entry_SYSENTER

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: <CAMzpN2i7n449-W_acrojUCyd=F0y3C4G650mBgcY-6AfibpfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:31:51 -0500
From:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/entry/32: Add an ASM_CLAC to entry_SYSENTER_32

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>
>> Ideally we'd fix this up and restore flags on sysexit.  At least
>> failing to restore arithmetic flags isn't an info leak because the
>> exit code clobbers them with entirely predictable data.  I doubt
>> anyone cares all that much if we clobber AC.
>
> As long as the "clobber AC" is purely about clearing it, it's probably fine.
>
> Although there may be programs that set AC in order to actually get
> notified about alignment issues (perhaps for portability reasons,
> perhaps for small performance reasons). Clearing it will make those
> programs still work, but they lose the checking.
>
>> I wrote a test for NT and the test fails for a different reason: our
>> TF handling appears broken as well.  (Our sysenter TF handling is
>> *crap*, but it seems to work on 64-bit kernels at least.)
>
> TF should be entirely immaterial for system calls. Why would we care?
> We need it for correct handling of real traps, but not for the system
> call case afaik. Returning with TF clear is the right thing, since
> we're not returning *to* the system call instruction, but the
> instruction after.
>
>> My personal preference would be to add the missing popf.
>
> I don't mind adding the popf, but it won't help for iopl. Only iret
> restores iopl, if I recall correctly (but maybe I don't, and I'm too
> lazy to take the 30 seconds to look it up).
>
>                Linus

According to the SDM, popf will change IOPL only at CPL0, which is why
Xen (which runs at CPL1 on 32-bit) has a paravirt hook for it.

--
Brian Gerst