linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/4] xen/PVH: Replace GDT

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: <776256de-1e9d-9e7a-2352-0f8ce0e7f5c8@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 May 2018 08:16:04 -0400
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        jgross@...e.com, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/4] xen/PVH: Replace GDT_ENTRY with explicit
 constant



On 05/01/2018 03:53 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 02:07:43PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> On 04/30/2018 12:57 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:23:36PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> Latest binutils release (2.29.1) will no longer allow proper computation
>>>> of GDT entries on 32-bits, with warning:
>>>>
>>>> arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S: Assembler messages:
>>>> arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S:150: Warning: shift count out of range (32 is not between 0 and 31)
>>>> arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S:150: Warning: shift count out of range (40 is not between 0 and 31)
>>>> arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S:150: Warning: shift count out of range (32 is not between 0 and 31)
>>>> arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S:152: Warning: shift count out of range (32 is not between 0 and 31)
>>>> arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S:152: Warning: shift count out of range (40 is not between 0 and 31)
>>>> arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S:152: Warning: shift count out of range (32 is not between 0 and 31)
>>>>
>>>> Use explicit value of the entry instead of using GDT_ENTRY() macro.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
>>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>>> ---
>>>>   arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S | 6 +++---
>>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S b/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S
>>>> index e1a5fbe..934f7d4 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S
>>>> @@ -145,11 +145,11 @@ gdt_start:
>>>>   	.quad 0x0000000000000000            /* NULL descriptor */
>>>>   	.quad 0x0000000000000000            /* reserved */
>>>>   #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>>> -	.quad GDT_ENTRY(0xa09a, 0, 0xfffff) /* __KERNEL_CS */
>>>> +	.quad 0x00af9a000000ffff            /* __BOOT_CS */
>>>>   #else
>>>> -	.quad GDT_ENTRY(0xc09a, 0, 0xfffff) /* __KERNEL_CS */
>>>> +	.quad 0x00cf9a000000ffff            /* __BOOT_CS */
>>> Maybe it would be cleaner to use something like:
>>
>> I actually considered all of these and ended up with a raw number
>> because it seems to be a convention in kernel (and Xen too, apparently)
>> to use raw values in .S files.
>>
>> Kernel is using now GDT_ENTRY_INIT() which is a C macro. There is one
>> other location where GDT_INIT() is used (arch/x86/boot/pm.c) and,
>> incidentally, it also generates this warning IIRC.
>>
>> I really don't want to move definition to C code just to use a macro ---
>> I don't think C code needs to be exposed to this GDT.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> .word 0xffff /* limit */
>>> .word 0      /* base */
>>> .byte 0      /* base */
>>> .byte 0x9a   /* access */
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>> .byte 0xaf   /* flags plus limit */
>>> #else
>>> .byte 0xcf   /* flags plus limit */
>>> #endif
>>> .byte 0      /* base */
>>
>>
>> I, in fact, started with something like this. But if you repeat this 4
>> times you will probably see why I decided against it ;-)
> 
> Heh, right. Maybe a .macro to generate those? Or this is all too much
> for just a couple of GDT entries anyway...


That's what I thought. Especially given that assembly code seems to be 
using raw values.

> 
> For long mode however you could use simpler values, AFAICT the code
> segment in long mode could be simplified to:
> 
> 0x00209a0000000000
> 
> Because the base/limit have no effect.


True. However, we are sharing the DS (and later GS) descriptors between 
32- and 64-it modes. I can separate them if you think it makes sense.

-boris


> 
> In any case I'm not specially inclined either way, and maybe using
> similar values for 32 and 64bit modes makes this easier to understand
> (and decode if needed).
> 
> Roger.
>