linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Add XSAVES system states for shadow stack

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: <20181111190230.GA2681@amd>
Date:   Sun, 11 Nov 2018 20:02:30 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Add XSAVES system states for
 shadow stack

On Sun 2018-11-11 06:59:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Nov 11, 2018, at 3:31 AM, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * State component 12 is Control flow Enforcement kernel states
> >>> + */
> >>> +struct cet_kernel_state {
> >>> +    u64 kernel_ssp;    /* kernel shadow stack */
> >>> +    u64 pl1_ssp;    /* ring-1 shadow stack */
> >>> +    u64 pl2_ssp;    /* ring-2 shadow stack */
> >> 
> >> Just write "privilege level" everywhere - not "ring".
> > 
> > Please just use word "ring". It is well estabilished terminology.
> > 
> > Which ring is priviledge level 1, given that we have SMM and
> > virtualization support?
> 
> To the contrary: CPL, DPL, and RPL are very well defined terms in the architecture manuals. “PL” is privilege level. PL 1 is very well defined.
> 

"Priviledge level" is generic term. "CPL" I may recognize as
Intel-specific. "priviledge level" I would not. So I'd really use
"ring" there. "CPL 1 shadow stack" would be okay, too I guess.

> SMM is SMM, full stop (unless dual mode or whatever it’s called is on, but AFAIK no one uses it).  VMX non-root CPL 1 is *still* privilege level 1.
> 
> In contrast, the security community likes to call SMM “ring -1”, which is cute, but wrong from a systems programmer view. For example, SMM’s CPL can still range from 0-3.
> 

Regards,
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)