linux-kernel - Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 4/4] refcount: Report failures through CHECK_DATA

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170208141058.GG15459@leverpostej>
Date:   Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:10:58 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
        Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 4/4] refcount: Report failures
 through CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 10:12:50AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On x86 have have __ex_table and __bug_table. The former is used for all
> sorts of things, including fixing up faults.
> 
> Now, our struct exception_table_entry has a third field used to specify
> a handler, see commit:
> 
>  548acf19234d ("x86/mm: Expand the exception table logic to allow new handling options")

Ah; neat!

> Still, if we want to allow a generic implementation that does a function
> call, the handler prototype should probably look like:
> 
> 	void exception_value(unsigned long value);
> 
> Which means the arch bits need a trampoline and we also need to encode
> that. The best I've come up with is having nr_regs trampolines and
> stuffing the trampoline function in the ->handler field and then using
> the ->to field to encode the actual handler.
> 
> Something like:
> 
> #define EX_REG_HANDLER(_reg)					\
> bool ex_handler_value_##_reg(const struct exception_table_entry *fixup, \
> 			    struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)	\
> {								\
> 	void (*handler)(unsigned long) =			\
> 		(void *)((unsigned long)&fixup->to + fixup->to); \
> 								\
> 	if (trapnr != X86_TRAP_UD)				\
> 		return false;					\
> 								\
> 	regs->ip += 2; /* size of UD2 instruction */		\
> 	handler(regs->_reg);					\
> 	return true;						\
> }
> 
> EX_REG_HANDLER(bx);
> EX_REG_HANDLER(cx);
> ...
> EX_REG_HANDLER(ss);
> 
> 
> asm (
> " .macro reg_to_handler	r\n"
> " .irp rs,bx,cx,...,ss\n"
> " .ifc \\r, %\\rs\n"
> " ex_handler_value_\\rs\n"
> " .endif\n"
> " .endr\n"
> " .endm\n"
> );
> 
> #define EXCEPTION_VALUE(val, handler)			\
> 	asm volatile ("1: ud2"				\
> 		      _ASM_EXTABLE_HANDLE(1b, handler,	\
> 				     reg_to_handler %0) \
> 		      : : "r" (val))
> 
> 
> Where the generic version can simply be:
> 
> #define EXCEPTION_VALUE(val, handler)	handler((unsigned long)val)
> 
> Makes sense?

That all makes sense to me.

I'll take a look at putting together an arm64 equivalent to the x86
extable patch, along with cleanup to our SW breakpoint code (which we
use in lieu for x86's UD2).

Thanks,
Mark.