linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/retpoline/entry: Disable the entire SYSCALL64 fast path with retpolines on

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: <20180123080101.7udtt6wdl6jpglwa@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:01:01 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Samuel Neves <samuel.c.p.neves@...il.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/retpoline/entry: Disable the entire SYSCALL64 fast
 path with retpolines on


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> > The existing retpoline code carefully and awkwardly retpolinifies
> > the SYSCALL64 slow path.  This stops the fast path from being
> > particularly fast, and it's IMO rather messy.
> 
> I'm not convinced your patch isn't messier still.. It's certainly
> subtle. I had to look at that ptregs stub generator thing twice.
> 
> Honestly, I'd rather get rid of the fast-path entirely. Compared to
> all the PTI mess, it's not even noticeable.
> 
> And if we ever get CPU's that have this all fixed, we can re-visit
> introducing the fastpath. But this is all very messy and it doesn't
> seem worth it right now.
> 
> If we get rid of the fastpath, we can lay out the slow path slightly
> better, and get rid of some of those jump-overs. And we'd get rid of
> the ptregs hooks entirely.
> 
> So we can try to make the "slow" path better while at it, but I really
> don't think it matters much now in the post-PTI era. Sadly.

Note that there's another advantage to your proposal: should other vulnerabilities 
arise in the future, requiring changes in the syscall entry path, we'd be more 
flexible to address them in the C space than in the assembly space.

In hindsight a _LOT_ of the PTI complexity and fragility centered around 
interacting with x86 kernel entry assembly code - which entry code fortunately got 
much simpler (and easier to review) in the past 1-2 years due to the thorough 
cleanups and the conversion of most of it to C. But it was still painful.

So I'm fully in favor of that.

Thanks,

	Ingo