linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Make sure verify

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: <56D7612A.4080107@zytor.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 13:54:50 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86: Make sure verify_cpu has a good stack

On 03/02/16 13:46, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:35:09PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> You're not actually testing anything as the real issue is what happens
>> with a relocating bootloader.
> 
> Hmm, how would that relocation happen so that va - __START_KERNEL_map
> doesn't give pa?
> 
> Or do you mean something else with "relocating bootloader"? Do you know
> of one which does that?
> 

A relocating bootloader is one that doesn't load the kernel at
CONFIG_PHYSICAL_ADDRESS.  The EFI stub is one example.

__START_KERNEL_map is not relocated.  On x86-64 we do relocation by
pointing the page tables at a different address.

So I really think we need this to be a leaq, so we take a nonstandard
load address into consideration.

	-hpa