[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160620175311.GA24505@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:53:11 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: the usage of __SYSCALL_MASK in entry_SYSCALL_64/do_syscall_64 is not
consistent
On 06/19, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Something's clearly buggy there,
The usage of __X32_SYSCALL_BIT doesn't look right too. Nothing serious
but still.
Damn, initially I thought I have found the serious bug in entry_64.S
and it took me some time to understand why my exploit doesn't work ;)
So I learned that
andl $__SYSCALL_MASK, %eax
in entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath() zero-extends %rax and thus
cmpl $__NR_syscall_max, %eax
...
call *sys_call_table(, %rax, 8)
is correct (rax <= __NR_syscall_max).
OK, so entry_64.S simply "ignores" the upper bits if CONFIG_X86_X32_ABI.
Fine, but this doesn't match the
if (likely((nr & __SYSCALL_MASK) < NR_syscalls))
check in do_syscall_64(). So this test-case
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
// __NR_exit == 0x3c
asm volatile ("movq $0xFFFFFFFF0000003c, %rax; syscall");
printf("I didn't exit because I am traced\n");
return 0;
}
silently exits if not traced, otherwise it calls printf().
Should we do something or we do not care?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists