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: <1535651666.27823.6.camel@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 10:54:26 -0700
From:   Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, hjl.tools@...il.com,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, keescook@...omiun.org,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/24] x86/mm: Modify ptep_set_wrprotect and
 pmdp_set_wrprotect for _PAGE_DIRTY_SW

On Thu, 2018-08-30 at 10:33 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 08/30/2018 10:26 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > 
> > We don't have the guard page now, but there is a shadow stack
> > token
> > there, which cannot be used as a return address.
> The overall concern is that we could overflow into a page that we
> did
> not intend.  Either another actual shadow stack or something that a
> page
> that the attacker constructed, like the transient scenario Jann
> described.
> 

A task could go beyond the bottom of its shadow stack by doing either
'ret' or 'incssp'.  If it is the 'ret' case, the token prevents it.
 If it is the 'incssp' case, a guard page cannot prevent it entirely,
right?

Yu-cheng

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ