linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:31:24 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Jayachandran Chandrasekharan Nair <jnair@...vell.com>,
        "catalin.marinas@....com" <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Jan Glauber <jglauber@...vell.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Disable lockref on arm64

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 04:18:21PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Yes, I am using the same saturation point as x86. In this example, I
> am not entirely sure I understand why it matters, though: the atomics
> guarantee that the write by CPU2 fails if CPU1 changed the value in
> the mean time, regardless of which value it wrote.
> 
> I think the concern is more related to the likelihood of another CPU
> doing something nasty between the moment that the refcount overflows
> and the moment that the handler pins it at INT_MIN/2, e.g.,
> 
> > CPU 1                   CPU 2
> > inc()
> >   load INT_MAX
> >   about to overflow?
> >   yes
> >
> >   set to 0
> >                          <insert exploit here>
> >   set to INT_MIN/2

Ah, gotcha, but the "set to 0" is really "set to INT_MAX+1" (not zero)
if you're using the same saturation.

-- 
Kees Cook