linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch

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: <20190216103044.GR32494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sat, 16 Feb 2019 11:30:44 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     hpa@...or.com
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, james.morse@....com,
        valentin.schneider@....com, brgerst@...il.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        luto@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dvlasenk@...hat.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 08:06:56PM -0800, hpa@...or.com wrote:
> This implies we invoke schedule -- a restricted operation (consider
> may_sleep) during execution of STAC-enabled code, but *not* as an
> exception or interrupt, since those preserve the flags.

Meet preempt_enable().

> I have serious concerns about this. This is more or less saying that
> we have left an unlimited gap and have had AC escape.

Yes; by allowing normal C in between STAC and CLAC this is so.

> Does *anyone* see a need to allow this? I got a question at LPC from
> someone about this, and what they were trying to do once all the
> layers had been unwound was so far down the wrong track for a root
> problem that actually has a very simple solution.

Have you read the rest of the thread?

All it takes for this to explode is a call to a C function that has
tracing on it in between the user_access_begin() and user_access_end()
things. That is a _very_ easy thing to do.

Heck, GCC is allowed to generate that broken code compiling
lib/strnlen_user.c; it doesn't _have_ to inline do_strnlen_user (esp.
with CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING), and making that a function call would
get us fentry hooks and ftrace and *BOOM*.

(Now, of course, its a static function with a single caller, and GCC
isn't _THAT_ stupid, but it could, if it wanted to)

Since the bar is _that_ low for mistakes, I figure we'd better fix it.