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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Mar 2016 14:11:51 -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 14:09, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 01:54:50PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Hmm, but __START_KERNEL_map is a simple macro:
> 
> #define __START_KERNEL_map      _AC(0xffffffff80000000, UL)

That should not be a problem.
> 
> Ok, I think you want to do something like this for stack_start too:
> 
>         /*
>          * Compute the delta between the address I am compiled to run at and the
>          * address I am actually running at.
>          */
>         leaq    _text(%rip), %rbp
>         subq    $_text - __START_KERNEL_map, %rbp
> 	...
> 
> in the normal case %rbp is 0, of course.
> 

Not sure if we need a reference to _text here.

	-hpa