linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86: narrow out of bounds syscalls to sys

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: <CAPcyv4gE6qgncGPWWu1aWxbK6fO-tvpDEpE+zkZPfeL+EJAr1w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Feb 2018 16:33:04 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86: narrow out of bounds syscalls to sys_read
 under speculation

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> At that point we're basically just back to the array_ptr() version
>> that returned a sanitized pointer to an array element.
>
> .. that one does an extra unnecessary 'andq' instead of the duplicated
> cmp.  But at least it avoids comparing that 32-bit integer twice, so
> it's probably slightly smaller.
>
> (And your code generation is without the "r" -> "ir" fix for the size argument)
>
> Probably doesn't matter. But a "asm goto" would give you at least
> potentially optimal code.
>

Should we go with array_element_nospec() in the meantime? So we're not
depending on jump labels? With the constraint fix and killing that
superfluous AND the assembly is now:

     e26:       48 81 fd 4d 01 00 00    cmp    $0x14d,%rbp
     e2d:       48 19 d2                sbb    %rdx,%rdx
                        NR_syscalls);
        if (likely(call))
     e30:       48 21 d0                and    %rdx,%rax
     e33:       74 1e                   je     e53 <do_syscall_64+0x73>
                regs->ax = (*call)(regs->di, regs->si, regs->dx,
     e35:       48 8b 4b 38             mov    0x38(%rbx),%rcx
     e39:       48 8b 53 60             mov    0x60(%rbx),%rdx
     e3d:       48 8b 73 68             mov    0x68(%rbx),%rsi
     e41:       48 8b 7b 70             mov    0x70(%rbx),%rdi
     e45:       4c 8b 4b 40             mov    0x40(%rbx),%r9
     e49:       4c 8b 43 48             mov    0x48(%rbx),%r8
     e4d:       ff 10                   callq  *(%rax)
     e4f:       48 89 43 50             mov    %rax,0x50(%rbx)
     e53:       65 48 8b 04 25 00 00    mov    %gs:0x0,%rax