linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 4/6] x86: Disable PTI on compatibility mode

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: <CALCETrVF8kjEUhgMQh=BT483dzQ0amfo0ruim4MOSD7DMnEVBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 03:03:26 +0000
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 4/6] x86: Disable PTI on compatibility mode

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:22 PM, Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is not too pretty, I agree, but it should do the work. There is only one
>> problematic descriptor that can be used to switch from compatibility-mode to
>> long-mode in the GDT (LDT descriptors always have the L-bit cleared).
>> Changing the descriptor's present bit on context switch when needed can do
>> the work.
>
> Sure, I can see it working, but it's some really shady stuff, and now
> the scheduler needs to save/restore/check one more subtle bit.
>
> And if you get it wrong, things will happily work, except you've now
> defeated PTI. But you'll never notice, because you won't be testing
> for it, and the only people who will are the black hats.
>
> This is exactly the "security depends on it being in sync" thing that
> makes me go "eww" about the whole model. Get one thing wrong, and
> you'll blow all the PTI code out of the water.
>
> So now you tried to optimize one small case that most people won't
> use, but the downside is that you may make all our PTI work (and all
> the overhead for all the _normal_ cases) pointless.
>

There's also the fact that, if this stuff goes in, we'll be
encouraging people to deploy 32-bit binaries.  Then they'll buy
Meltdown-fixed CPUs (or AMD CPUs!) and they may well continue running
32-bit binaries.  Sigh.  I'm not totally a fan of this.