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]

Date:   Wed, 7 Feb 2018 21:24:35 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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>,
        Rudolf Marek <r.marek@...embler.cz>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] BUILD REGRESSION
 a2e5790d841658485d642196dbb0927303d6c22f

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:43:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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?

Yes, AMD doesn't do UD0 with a ModRM:

"UD0 0F FF Raise an invalid opcode exception"

And I don't know about the other x86 vendors; what fun they've had with
the UD*.

I guess we should make sure the following bytes are a valid insn.

Btw Rudolf had experimented with this, CCed, and he showed that on Intel
you get a SIGSEGV for a page crosser with UD1 and SIGILL on AMD.

I guess you can get the same with UD0 apparently.

> 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).

Yeah, I guess we can control the bytes there.

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

That's easy - the decoder should simply say to upgrade objdump.

> and then we just ignore the issue entirely.
> 
> Hmm?

Sounds like a plan but with those things the devil's in the detail.
Nothing sounds too nasty now, though.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.