linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] Retpoline: Avoid speculative indirect calls in kernel

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1515408317.7317.31.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 08 Jan 2018 10:45:17 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] Retpoline: Avoid speculative indirect calls
 in kernel

On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 02:34 -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> One detail that is missing is that we still need RSB refill in some
> cases.
> This is not because the retpoline sequence itself will underflow (it
> is actually guaranteed not to, since it consumes only RSB entries
> that it generates.  
> But either to avoid poisoning of the RSB entries themselves, or to
> avoid the hardware turning to alternate predictors on RSB underflow.
> 
> Enumerating the cases we care about:
> 
> • user->kernel in the absence of SMEP:
> In the absence of SMEP, we must worry about user-generated RSB
> entries being consumable by kernel execution.
> Generally speaking, for synchronous execution this will not occur
> (e.g. syscall, interrupt), however, one important case remains.
> When we context switch between two threads, we should flush the RSB
> so that execution generated from the unbalanced return path on the
> thread that we just scheduled into, cannot consume RSB entries
> potentially installed by the prior thread.

Or IBPB here, yes? That's what we had in the original patch set when
retpoline came last, and what I assume will be put back again once we
*finally* get our act together and reinstate the full set of microcode
patches.

> kernel->kernel independent of SMEP:
> While much harder to coordinate, facilities such as eBPF potentially
> allow exploitable return targets to be created.
> Generally speaking (particularly if eBPF has been disabled) the risk
> is _much_ lower here, since we can only return into kernel execution
> that was already occurring on another thread (which could e.g. likely
> be attacked there directly independent of RSB poisoning.)
> 
> guest->hypervisor, independent of SMEP:
> For guest ring0 -> host ring0 transitions, it is possible that the
> tagging only includes that the entry was only generated in a ring0
> context.  Meaning that a guest generated entry may be consumed by the
> host.  This admits:

We are also stuffing the RSB on vmexit in the IBRS/IBPB patch set,
aren't we?

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5213 bytes)