linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] asm/generic: introduce if_nospec and nospec

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: <CAPcyv4jiBo9ewi3kg00r+fXk=vAZVtGHanTZ8tCso=s9=vNt_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Jan 2018 22:42:41 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "jikos@...nel.org" <jikos@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] asm/generic: introduce if_nospec and nospec_barrier

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 05:50:12AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 09:44:33PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2018 at 03:10:51AM +0000, Williams, Dan J wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> diff --git a/include/linux/fdtable.h b/include/linux/fdtable.h
>> > >> index 1c65817673db..dbc12007da51 100644
>> > >> --- a/include/linux/fdtable.h
>> > >> +++ b/include/linux/fdtable.h
>> > >> @@ -82,8 +82,10 @@ static inline struct file *__fcheck_files(struct files_struct *files, unsigned i
>> > >>  {
>> > >>       struct fdtable *fdt = rcu_dereference_raw(files->fdt);
>> > >>
>> > >> -     if (fd < fdt->max_fds)
>> > >> +     if (fd < fdt->max_fds) {
>> > >> +             osb();
>> > >>               return rcu_dereference_raw(fdt->fd[fd]);
>> > >> +     }
>> > >>       return NULL;
>> > >>  }
>> > >
>> > > ... and the point of that would be?  Possibly revealing the value of files->fdt?
>> > > Why would that be a threat, assuming you manage to extract the information in
>> > > question in the first place?
>> >
>> > No, the concern is that an fd value >= fdt->max_fds may cause the cpu
>> > to read arbitrary memory addresses relative to files->fdt and
>> > userspace can observe that it got loaded.
>>
>> Yes.  And all that might reveal is the value of files->fdt.  Who cares?
>
> Sorry, s/files->fdt/files->fdt->fd/.  Still the same question - what information
> would that extract and how would attacker use that?

The question is if userspace can ex-filtrate any data from the kernel
that would otherwise be blocked by a bounds check should the kernel
close that hole?

For these patches I do not think the bar should be "can I prove an
information leak is exploitable" it should be "can I prove that a leak
is not exploitable", especially when possibly combined with other leak
sites.