[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3A5624D6-3D7B-4C32-BF97-27A78CBEE14E@amacapital.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 09:45:04 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"w@....eu" <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: Avoid CR3 load on compatibility mode with PTI
> On Jan 15, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2018, at 12:13 PM, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Currently, when page-table isolation is on to prevent the Meltdown bug
>>> (CVE-2017-5754), CR3 is always loaded on system-call and interrupt.
>>>
>>> However, it appears that this is an unnecessary measure when programs
>>> run in compatibility mode. In this mode only 32-bit registers are
>>> available, which means that there *should* be no way for the CPU to
>>> access, even speculatively, memory that belongs to the kernel, which
>>> sits in high addresses.
>>
>> You're assuming that TIF_IA32 prevents the execution of 64-bit code. It doesn't.
>>
>> I've occasionally considered adding an opt-in hardening mechanism to enforce 32-bit or 64-bit execution, but we don't have this now.
>
> I noticed it doesn’t. I thought the removing/restoring the __USER_CS
> descriptor on context switch, based on TIF_IA32, would be enough.
> modify_ldt() always keeps the descriptor l-bit clear. I will review the
> other GDT descriptors, and if needed, create two GDTs. Let me know if I
> missed anything else.
There world need to be some opt-in control, I think, for CRIU if nothing else.
Also, on Xen PV, it's a complete nonstarter. We don't have enough control over the GDT unless someone knows otherwise. But there's no PTI on Xen PV either.
>
>> Anything like this would also need to spend on SMEP, I think -- the pseudo-SMEP granted by PTI is too valuable to give up on old boxes, I think.
>
> If SMEP is not supported, compatibility mode would still require page-table
> isolation.
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I still look for an ack for the basic idea of
> disabling page-table isolation on compatibility mode.
>
I'm still not really convinced this is worth it. It will send a bad message and get people to run critical stuff compiled for 32-bit, which has its own downsides.
> Regards,
> Nadav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists