linux-kernel - Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

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:   Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:30:06 +0300
From:   Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Chen Yucong <slaoub@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Julliard <julliard@...ehq.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, linux-msdos@...r.kernel.org,
        wine-devel@...ehq.org
Subject: Re: [v6 PATCH 00/21] x86: Enable User-Mode Instruction Prevention

10.03.2017 05:41, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Ricardo Neri
> <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 19:53 +0300, Stas Sergeev wrote:
>>> 08.03.2017 19:46, Andy Lutomirski пишет:
>>>>> No no, since I meant prot mode, this is not what I need.
>>>>> I would never need to disable UMIP as to allow the
>>>>> prot mode apps to do SLDT. Instead it would be good
>>>>> to have an ability to provide a replacement for the dummy
>>>>> emulation that is currently being proposed for kernel.
>>>>> All is needed for this, is just to deliver a SIGSEGV.
>>>> That's what I meant.  Turning off FIXUP_UMIP would leave UMIP on but
>>>> turn off the fixup, so you'd get a SIGSEGV indicating #GP (or a vm86
>>>> GP exit).
>>> But then I am confused with the word "compat" in
>>> your "COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP_FIXUP" and
>>> "sys_adjust_compat_mask(int op, int word, u32 mask);"
>>>
>>> Leaving UMIP on and only disabling a fixup doesn't
>>> sound like a compat option to me. I would expect
>>> compat to disable it completely.
>> I guess that the _UMIP_FIXUP part makes it clear that emulation, not
>> UMIP is disabled, allowing the SIGSEGV be delivered to the user space
>> program.
>>
>> Would having a COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP_FIXUP to disable emulation and a
>> COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP to disable UMIP make sense?
>>
>> Also, wouldn't having a COMPAT_MASK0_X86_UMIP to disable UMIP defeat its
>> purpose? Applications could simply use this compat mask to bypass UMIP
>> and gain access to the instructions it protects.
>>
> I was obviously extremely unclear.  The point of the proposed syscall
> is to let programs opt out of legacy features.
I guess both "compat" and "legacy" are misleading
here. Maybe these are "x86-specific" or "hypervisor-specific",
but a mere enabling of UMIP doesn't immediately make
the use of SLDT instruction a legacy IMHO.

>   I'll ponder this a bit more.
So if we are to invent something new, it would be nice to
also think up a clear terminology for it. Maybe something
like "X86_FEATURE_xxx_MASK" or alike.