linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86, core)

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: <20160624205116.4hbnurrnan4afq2t@treble>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 15:51:16 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] Virtually mapped stacks with guard pages (x86,
 core)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:11:47AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > And in particular, the init_task stack initialization initialized it
> > > to the init_thread pointer. Which was definitely deadly.
> > >
> > > Let's see if that was it..
> > 
> > No, it's still broken. But it's *less* broken, so here's a new version
> > of the patch that at least gets some of the stack setup right, in my
> > hope that somebody will bother to look at this, and being less broken
> > might mean that somebody sees what else I missed..
> 
> I found at least one bug.  The changing of task->stack from a "void *" to an
> "unsigned long *":
> 
> > -	void *stack;
> > +	unsigned long *stack;
> 
> That subtly changes the pointer arithmetic in do_boot_cpu():
> 
> 
> 	idle->thread.sp = (unsigned long) (((struct pt_regs *)
> 			  (THREAD_SIZE +  task_stack_page(idle))) - 1);
> 
> 
> That ends up adding 128k to the stack page bottom instead of 16k.
> 
> But fixing that doesn't seem to fix this:
> 
> [18446743832.576241] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [18446743832.576241] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 0 at /home/jpoimboe/git/linux/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c:1434 cpu_init+0x34b/0x440
> [18446743832.576241] Modules linked in:
> [18446743832.576241] CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 4.7.0-rc4+ #47
> [18446743832.576241] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.8.1-20150318_183358- 04/01/2014
> [18446743832.576241]  0000000000000086 574e5e6c6855ace9 ffff88007c553e88 ffffffff8143cb83
> [18446743832.576241]  0000000000000000 0000000000000000 ffff88007c553ec8 ffffffff810b0e7b
> [18446743832.576241]  0000059a00000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> [18446743832.576241] Call Trace:
> [18446743832.576241]  [<ffffffff8143cb83>] dump_stack+0x85/0xc2
> [18446743832.576241]  [<ffffffff810b0e7b>] __warn+0xcb/0xf0
> [18446743832.576241]  [<ffffffff810b0fad>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1d/0x20
> [18446743832.576241]  [<ffffffff810491bb>] cpu_init+0x34b/0x440
> [18446743832.576241]  [<ffffffff8105ab7c>] start_secondary+0x1c/0x1a0
> [18446743832.576241] ---[ end trace 924d57afbaca0720 ]---
> 
> So there's at least another bug lurking..

Found another bug:

#define stack_smp_processor_id()					\
({								\
	struct thread_info *ti;						\
	__asm__("andq %%rsp,%0; ":"=r" (ti) : "0" (CURRENT_MASK));	\
	ti->cpu;							\
})

That macro is obviously no longer valid.

That seems to cause the above warning.  When trying to boot CPU 1,
cpu_init() calls the above macro which incorrectly returns 0.

-- 
Josh