linux-kernel - Re: RFC: userspace exception fixups

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:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 13:07:54 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Christopherson, Sean J" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, nhorman@...hat.com,
        npmccallum@...hat.com, "Ayoun, Serge" <serge.ayoun@...el.com>,
        shay.katz-zamir@...el.com, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...hat.com>,
        adhemerval.zanella@...aro.org
Subject: Re: RFC: userspace exception fixups



> On Nov 6, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/6/18 12:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> True, but what if we have a nasty enclave that writes to memory just
>> below SP *before* decrementing SP?
> 
> Yeah, that would be unfortunate.  If an enclave did this (roughly):
> 
>    1. EENTER
>    2. Hardware sets eenter_hwframe->sp = %sp
>    3. Enclave runs... wants to do out-call
>    4. Enclave sets up parameters:
>        memcpy(&eenter_hwframe->sp[-offset], arg1, size);
>        ...
>    5. Enclave sets eenter_hwframe->sp -= offset
> 
> If we got a signal between 4 and 5, we'd clobber the copy of 'arg1' that
> was on the stack.  The enclave could easily fix this by moving ->sp first.
> 
> But, this is one of those "fun" parts of the ABI that I think we need to
> talk about.  If we do this, we also basically require that the code
> which handles asynchronous exits must *not* write to the stack.  That's
> not hard because it's typically just a single ERESUME instruction, but
> it *is* a requirement.
> 

I was assuming that the async exit stuff was completely hidden by the API. The AEP code would decide whether the exit got fixed up by the kernel (which may or may not be easy to tell — can the code even tell without kernel help whether it was, say, an IRQ vs #UD?) and then either do ERESUME or cause sgx_enter_enclave() to return with an appropriate return value.