linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/pkeys: Explicitly treat PK #PF on kernel address as a bad area

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:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 16:33:43 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/pkeys: Explicitly treat PK #PF on kernel address as a
 bad area

On 08/30/2018 03:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Given the time span you should be close to ground water with your digging
> by now.

So, turns out that we start our spurious_fault() code with this check:

>         if (error_code != (X86_PF_WRITE | X86_PF_PROT) &&
>             error_code != (X86_PF_INSTR | X86_PF_PROT))
>                 return 0;

Which ensures that we only do spurious checking for *very* specific
error_code's.  That ends up making the X86_PF_PK check inside of
spurious_fault_check() dead code _anyway_.  It's totally unreachable as
far as I can tell.

We could add a comment above the error_code check to make it explicit
that it excludes pkeys.

But, otherwise, I think we can just axe the X86_PF_PK
spurious_fault_check().