linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 05/26] x86/mpx: Do not use SIB.base if its value is 101b and ModRM.mod = 0

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, 05 Jun 2017 23:08:03 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        Liang Z Li <liang.z.li@...el.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>,
        Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-msdos@...r.kernel.org, wine-devel@...ehq.org,
        Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>,
        Nathan Howard <liverlint@...il.com>,
        Adan Hawthorn <adanhawthorn@...il.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/26] x86/mpx: Do not use SIB.base if its value is
 101b and ModRM.mod = 0

On Mon, 2017-05-29 at 15:07 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 11:17:03AM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> > Section 2.2.1.2 of the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software
> > Developer's Manual volume 2A states that when a SIB byte is used and the
> > base of the SIB byte points is base = 101b and the mod part
> > of the ModRM byte is zero, the base port on the effective address
> > computation is null. In this case, a 32-bit displacement follows the SIB
> > byte. This is obtained when the instruction decoder parses the operands.
> > 
> > To signal this scenario, a -EDOM error is returned to indicate callers that
> > they should ignore the base.
> > 
> > Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
> > Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> > Cc: Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>
> > Cc: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> > Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
> > Cc: Qiaowei Ren <qiaowei.ren@...el.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Nathan Howard <liverlint@...il.com>
> > Cc: Adan Hawthorn <adanhawthorn@...il.com>
> > Cc: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > Cc: Ravi V. Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
> > Cc: x86@...nel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/mm/mpx.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
> > index 7397b81..30aef92 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/mpx.c
> > @@ -122,6 +122,15 @@ static int get_reg_offset(struct insn *insn, struct pt_regs *regs,
> >  
> >  	case REG_TYPE_BASE:
> >  		regno = X86_SIB_BASE(insn->sib.value);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If ModRM.mod is 0 and SIB.base == 5, the base of the
> > +		 * register-indirect addressing is 0. In this case, a
> > +		 * 32-bit displacement is expected in this case; the
> > +		 * instruction decoder finds such displacement for us.
> 
> That last sentence reads funny. Just say:
> 
> "In this case, a 32-bit displacement follows the SIB byte."

Agreed. I will update the comment to make more sense.

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo