linux-kernel - Re: [patch 11/16] x86/ldt: Force access bit for CS/SS

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: <CALCETrVmFSVqDGrH1K+Qv=svPTP3E6maVb5T2feyDNRkKfDVKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:10:40 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>, aliguori@...zon.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 11/16] x86/ldt: Force access bit for CS/SS

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:03:02AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
>> > @@ -171,6 +172,9 @@ static void exit_to_usermode_loop(struct
>> >                 /* Disable IRQs and retry */
>> >                 local_irq_disable();
>> >
>> > +               if (cached_flags & _TIF_LDT)
>> > +                       ldt_exit_user(regs);
>>
>> Nope.  To the extent that this code actually does anything (which it
>> shouldn't since you already forced the access bit),
>
> Without this; even with the access bit set; IRET will go wobbly and
> we'll #GP on the user-space side. Try it ;-)

Maybe later.

But that means that we need Intel and AMD to confirm WTF is going on
before this blows up even with LAR on some other CPU.

>
>> it's racy against
>> flush_ldt() from another thread, and that race will be exploitable for
>> privilege escalation.  It needs to be outside the loopy part.
>
> The flush_ldt (__ldt_install after these patches) would re-set the TIF
> flag. But sure, we can move this outside the loop I suppose.