linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] x86/entry: Vastly simplify SYSENTER TF handling

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:	Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:46:42 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] x86/entry: Vastly simplify SYSENTER TF handling

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:17 AM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 12:52 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> Due to a blatant design error, SYSENTER doesn't clear TF.  As a result,
>>>> if a user does SYSENTER with TF set, we will single-step through the
>>>> kernel until something clears TF.  There is absolutely nothing we can
>>>> do to prevent this short of turning off SYSENTER [1].
>>>>
>>>> Simplify the handling considerably with two changes:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We already sanitize EFLAGS in SYSENTER to clear NT and AC.  We can
>>>>    add TF to that list of flags to sanitize with no overhead whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Teach do_debug to ignore single-step traps in the SYSENTER prologue.
>>>
>>> What is wrong with the current method of clearing TF and setting
>>> TIF_SINGLESTEP on the first debug trap?  This patch actually increases
>>> complexity because it has to check for a range of addresses rather
>>> than just the first instruction, plus it has to singlestep all the way
>>> through the SYSENTER prologue.
>>>
>>> Unless there is an actual issue with TIF_SINGLESTEP, I don't think
>>> this patch is an improvement.
>>
>> TIF_SINGLESTEP has bizarrely overloaded semantics.
>>
>> There's this:
>>
>>     /*
>>      * If we stepped into a sysenter/syscall insn, it trapped in
>>      * kernel mode; do_debug() cleared TF and set TIF_SINGLESTEP.
>>      * If user-mode had set TF itself, then it's still clear from
>>      * do_debug() and we need to set it again to restore the user
>>      * state so we don't wrongly set TIF_FORCED_TF below.
>>      * If enable_single_step() was used last and that is what
>>      * set TIF_SINGLESTEP, then both TF and TIF_FORCED_TF are
>>      * already set and our bookkeeping is fine.
>>      */
>>     if (unlikely(test_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_SINGLESTEP)))
>>         regs->flags |= X86_EFLAGS_TF;
>>
>> but TIF_SINGLESTEP is also used for other things.  (And I need to
>> follow up with a patch to remove that comment.)  This results in
>> incomprehensible behavior: if a user program sets TF and does
>> SYSENTER, then TIF_SINGLESTEP gets set (and stays set!).  This does
>> not happen if a user sets TF and does INT80 or SYSCALL.  There was at
>> least one bug in here that Oleg fixed a while back, and I wouldn't be
>> at all surprised if there were others.
>>
>> I don't know what would happen if TF were set and SYSENTER were used
>> to do a syscall where the __get_user to load the syscall nr failed.
>> That happens before the TIF_SINGLESTEP fixup.
>>
>> Basically, the overloaded use of TIF_SINGLESTEP was complicated and
>> hard to understand, and the new behavior is straightforward and
>> consistent with other entries, even if it's a bit slower.
>>
>> We could introduce a new TIF_SYSENTER_TF and use it directly, or we
>> could accelerate the TF fixup in regs->flags by switching to a
>> different entry path (I had a draft patch to do that), but I tend to
>> favor simplicity for things that aren't performance-critical.
>
> The alternate entry path wouldn't be very big, just 5 instructions
> with the OR being the only difference.

Agreed.  It's just more code to maintain and test.  I can certainly do it.

I scrapped it the first time because it was messy on Xen PV.  It was
extra messy because I did this part of the series before I cleaned up
the garbage ENTRY(debug) code, and that got in the way as well.

>
> Another option is to use a per-cpu var instead of a TIF flag.

Then we'd need to add a branch in the TF-not-set path, which would be
a bit unfortunate.

As a third option, we could force BTF on, which would reduce the
number of useless traps.

In any case, I'd be glad to speed this up as a follow-up patch if
anyone cares about performance.

--Andy