linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access

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: <CAPcyv4gx+2Dh6HS8e+TKNKP00+rYUkzGnEwdpZ_P6hFiOHKHNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 6 Jan 2018 15:31:54 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] x86, barrier: stop speculation for failed access_ok

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> The fact is, we have to stop speculating when access_ok() does *not*
>> fail - because that's when we'll actually do the access. And it's that
>> access that needs to be non-speculative.
>
> I also suspect we should probably do this entirely differently.
>
> Maybe the whole lfence can be part of uaccess_begin() instead (ie
> currently 'stac()'). That would fit the existing structure better, I
> think. And it would avoid any confusion about the whole "when to stop
> speculation".

I assume if we put this in uaccess_begin() we also need audit for
paths that use access_ok but don't do on to call uaccess_begin()? A
quick glance shows a few places where we are open coding the stac().
Perhaps land the lfence in stac() directly?