linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 11/14] arm64: efi: restore x18 if it was corrupted

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: <CANiq72mZC-G_R_RJjapZS+NvkQcrjdiri0NyHUgesFzUpe-MDg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 05:45:49 +0100
From:   Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 11/14] arm64: efi: restore x18 if it was corrupted

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:56 AM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> If we detect a corrupted x18 and SCS is enabled, restore the register
> before jumping back to instrumented code. This is safe, because the
> wrapper is called with preemption disabled and a separate shadow stack
> is used for interrupt handling.

In case you do v6: I think putting the explanation about why this is
safe in the existing comment would be best given it is justifying a
subtlety of the code rather than the change itself. Ard?

Cheers,
Miguel