linux-kernel - Re: [Kernel BUG?] SMSW operation get success on UMIP KVM guest

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: <20190701145308.GA19368@ranerica-svr.sc.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Jul 2019 07:53:08 -0700
From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Li Wang <liwang@...hat.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        kernellwp@...il.com, ricardo.neri@...el.com, pengfei.xu@...el.com,
        LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ping Fang <pifang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Kernel BUG?] SMSW operation get success on UMIP KVM guest

On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 02:02:35PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/07/19 09:50, Li Wang wrote:
> > Hello there,
> > 
> > LTP/umip_basic_test get failed on KVM UMIP
> > system(kernel-v5.2-rc4.x86_64). The test is only trying to do
> >      asm volatile("smsw %0\n" : "=m" (val));
> > and expect to get SIGSEGV in this SMSW operation, but it exits with 0
> > unexpectedly.
> 
> In addition to what Thomas said, perhaps you are using a host that does
> *not* have UMIP, and configuring KVM to emulate it(*).  In that case, it
> is not possible to intercept SMSW, and therefore it will incorrectly
> succeed.

Also, emulation for SMSW, SIDT, and SGDT is done only for 32-bit
processes. As Thomas said, the purpose is not on break Wine. In 64-bit
processes, we sould always see a #GP exception.
> 
> Paolo
> 
> (*) before the x86 people jump at me, this won't happen unless you
> explicitly pass an option to QEMU, such as "-cpu host,+umip". :)  The
> incorrect emulation of SMSW when CR4.UMIP=1 is why.

Paolo, what do you mean by the incorrect emulation of SMSW?

Thanks and BR,
Ricardo