linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] BUILD REGRESSION a2e5790d841658485d642196dbb0927303d6c22f

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: <CA+55aFzSZzdVZXatze=xjGSwpOPO7kvbWnz7JiZ3sTx_2Pohjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Feb 2018 11:43:37 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] BUILD REGRESSION a2e5790d841658485d642196dbb0927303d6c22f

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 08:14:51PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> Then someone went and wrecked it.
>
> Yeah, note says UD0 didn't eat a ModRM byte on old CPUs. But then that
> changed too. Fun stuff changing insn encoding underway.
>
> So if we opt for adding a ModRM byte, could a 0x90 NOP work so that it
> doesn't shit itself on those old CPUs?

We could just also decide that the only thing that the modrm bytes of
UD0 actually *affect* is how the CPU might act for a page-crossing
instruction.

Because I think that's the only semantic difference: if it's a
page-crosser, the instruction could take a page fault before raising
the #UD.

Is there any other decode issue we might want to look out for?

Anyway, then we'd make the rule be:

 - we promise to always pad up the following bytes (our extra warning
information etc) so that we never have a missing page afterwards (this
is presumably practically speaking already the case). It might still
be a page-crossing instruction, but we won't take a page fault in
kernel space (due to it being at the end of some text sectoin or
whatever that changes the NX bit or due to DEBUG_PAGEALLOC having
unmapped the next page).

 - we special-case the decoder so that we don't get this warning

and then we just ignore the issue entirely.

Hmm?

              Linus