linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/39] x86/entry/32: Unshare NMI return path

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: <CALCETrWD7jhBarEr7r0iCN_Z8A2GvsE7VUi_4OVkQWwg8U516w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jul 2018 10:26:30 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <eduval@...zon.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "Liguori, Anthony" <aliguori@...zon.com>,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        "David H . Gutteridge" <dhgutteridge@...patico.ca>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/39] x86/entry/32: Unshare NMI return path

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:53:19PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Jul 11, 2018, at 4:29 AM, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org> wrote:
>> > NMI will no longer use most of the shared return path,
>> > because NMI needs special handling when the CR3 switches for
>> > PTI are added.
>>
>> Why?  What would go wrong?
>>
>> How many return-to-usermode paths will we have?  64-bit has only one.
>
> In the non-NMI return path we make a decission on whether we return to
> user-space or kernel-space and do different things based on that. For
> example, when returning to user-space we call
> prepare_exit_to_usermode(). With the CR3 switches added later we also
> unconditionally switch to user-cr3 when we are in the return-to-user
> path.
>
> The NMI return path does not need any of that, as it doesn't call
> prepare_exit_to_usermode() even when it returns to user-space. It
> doesn't even care where it returns to. It just remembers stack and cr3
> on entry in callee-safed registers and restores that on exit. This works
> in the NMI path because it is pretty simple and doesn't do any fancy
> work on exit.
>
> While working on a previous version I also tried to store stack and cr3
> in a callee-safed register and restore that on exit again, but it didn't
> work, most likley because something in-between overwrote one of the
> registers. I also found it a bit fragile to make make two registers
> untouchable in the whole entry-code. It doesn't make future changes
> simpler or more robust.
>
> So long story short, the NMI path can be simpler wrt. stack and cr3
> handling as the other entry/exit points, and therefore it is handled
> differently.
>
>

We used to do it this way on 64-bit, but I had to change it because of
a nasty case where we *fail* the return to user mode when we're
returning from an NMI.  In theory this can't happen any more due to a
bunch of tightening up of the way we handle segmentation, but it's
still quite nasty.  The whole situation on 32-bit isn't quite as
fragile because espfix32 is much more robust than espfix64.

So I suppose this is okay, but I wouldn't be totally shocked if we
need to redo it down the road.