linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] x86/sci: add core implementation for system call isolation

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:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 08:45:05 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Jonathan Adams <jwadams@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] x86/sci: add core implementation for system call
 isolation

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:49:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:45:49AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > The initial SCI implementation allows access to any kernel data, but it
> > limits access to the code in the following way:
> > * calls and jumps to known code symbols without offset are allowed
> > * calls and jumps into a known symbol with offset are allowed only if that
> > symbol was already accessed and the offset is in the next page
> > * all other code access are blocked
> 
> So if you have a large function and an in-function jump skips a page
> you're toast.

Right :(
 
> Why not employ the instruction decoder we have and unconditionally allow
> all direct JMP/CALL but verify indirect JMP/CALL and RET ?

Apparently I didn't dig deep enough to find the instruction decoder :)
Surely I can use it.

> Anyway, I'm fearing the overhead of this one, this cannot be fast.

Well, I think that the verification itself is not what will slow things
down the most. IMHO, the major overhead is coming from cr3 switch.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.