linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 73/74] x86/vdso: Prevent segfaults due to hoisted vclock reads

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: <20190805124941.688410363@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon,  5 Aug 2019 15:03:26 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Duncan Roe <duncan_roe@...usnet.com.au>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 73/74] x86/vdso: Prevent segfaults due to hoisted vclock reads

From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>

commit ff17bbe0bb405ad8b36e55815d381841f9fdeebc upstream.

GCC 5.5.0 sometimes cleverly hoists reads of the pvclock and/or hvclock
pages before the vclock mode checks.  This creates a path through
vclock_gettime() in which no vclock is enabled at all (due to disabled
TSC on old CPUs, for example) but the pvclock or hvclock page
nevertheless read.  This will segfault on bare metal.

This fixes commit 459e3a21535a ("gcc-9: properly declare the
{pv,hv}clock_page storage") in the sense that, before that commit, GCC
didn't seem to generate the offending code.  There was nothing wrong
with that commit per se, and -stable maintainers should backport this to
all supported kernels regardless of whether the offending commit was
present, since the same crash could just as easily be triggered by the
phase of the moon.

On GCC 9.1.1, this doesn't seem to affect the generated code at all, so
I'm not too concerned about performance regressions from this fix.

Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc: x86@...nel.org
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Reported-by: Duncan Roe <duncan_roe@...usnet.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/x86/entry/vdso/vclock_gettime.c |   15 +++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vclock_gettime.c
+++ b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/vclock_gettime.c
@@ -191,13 +191,24 @@ notrace static inline u64 vgetsns(int *m

 	if (gtod->vclock_mode == VCLOCK_TSC)
 		cycles = vread_tsc();
+
+	/*
+	 * For any memory-mapped vclock type, we need to make sure that gcc
+	 * doesn't cleverly hoist a load before the mode check.  Otherwise we
+	 * might end up touching the memory-mapped page even if the vclock in
+	 * question isn't enabled, which will segfault.  Hence the barriers.
+	 */
 #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT_CLOCK
-	else if (gtod->vclock_mode == VCLOCK_PVCLOCK)
+	else if (gtod->vclock_mode == VCLOCK_PVCLOCK) {
+		barrier();
 		cycles = vread_pvclock(mode);
+	}
 #endif
 #ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV_TSCPAGE
-	else if (gtod->vclock_mode == VCLOCK_HVCLOCK)
+	else if (gtod->vclock_mode == VCLOCK_HVCLOCK) {
+		barrier();
 		cycles = vread_hvclock(mode);
+	}
 #endif
 	else
 		return 0;