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, 10 Jan 2019 12:21:19 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/alternative: Use a single access in
 text_poke() where possible

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:04:28AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:57:57PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:42:57 -0800
> > Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:32:43PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:20:04 -0600
> > > > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >   
> > > > > > While I can't find a reason for hypervisors to emulate this instruction,
> > > > > > smarter people might find ways to turn it into a security exploit.    
> > > > > 
> > > > > Interesting point... but I wonder if it's a realistic concern.  BTW,
> > > > > text_poke_bp() also relies on undocumented behavior.  
> > > > 
> > > > But we did get an official OK from Intel that it will work. Took a bit
> > > > of arm twisting to get them to do so, but they did. And it really is
> > > > pretty robust.  
> > > 
> > > Did we (they?) list any caveats for this behavior?  E.g. I'm fairly
> > > certain atomicity guarantees go out the window if WC memtype is used.
> > 
> > Note, the text_poke_bp() process was this: (nothing to do with atomic
> > guarantees)
> > 
> > add breakpoint (one byte) to instruction.
> > 
> > Sync all cores (send an IPI to each one).
> > 
> > change the back half of the instruction (the rest of the instruction
> > after the breakpoint).
> > 
> > Sync all cores
> > 
> > Remove the breakpoint with the new byte of the new instruction.
> > 
> > 
> > What atomicity guarantee does the above require?
> 
> I was asking in the context of static calls.  My understanding is that
> the write to change the imm32 of the CALL needs to be atomic from a
> code fetch perspective so that we don't jump to a junk address.
> 
> Or were you saying that Intel gave an official OK on text_poke_bp()?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he was saying that.

Whose arms can we twist for finding out about static calls? :-)

-- 
Josh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists