linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel

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: <20200122224245.GA2331824@rani.riverdale.lan>
Date:   Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:42:51 -0500
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12] x86/split_lock: Enable split lock detection by kernel

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:55:14AM -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> +
> +static enum split_lock_detect_state sld_state = sld_warn;
> +

This sets sld_state to sld_warn even on CPUs that don't support
split-lock detection. split_lock_init will then try to read/write the
MSR to turn it on. Would it be better to initialize it to sld_off and
set it to sld_warn in split_lock_setup instead, which is only called if
the CPU supports the feature?

>  
> +dotraplinkage void do_alignment_check(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> +{
> +	const char str[] = "alignment check";
> +
> +	RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!rcu_is_watching(), "entry code didn't wake RCU");
> +
> +	if (notify_die(DIE_TRAP, str, regs, error_code, X86_TRAP_AC, SIGBUS) == NOTIFY_STOP)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (!split_lock_detect_enabled())
> +		return;

This misses one comment from Sean [1] that this check should be dropped,
otherwise user-space alignment check via EFLAGS.AC will get ignored when
split lock detection is disabled.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191122184457.GA31235@linux.intel.com/

> +
> +	if (!user_mode(regs))
> +		die("Split lock detected\n", regs, error_code);
> +
> +	cond_local_irq_enable(regs);
> +
> +	if (handle_user_split_lock(regs, error_code))
> +		return;
> +
> +	do_trap(X86_TRAP_AC, SIGBUS, "alignment check", regs,
> +		error_code, BUS_ADRALN, NULL);
> +}
> +

Peter [2] called this a possible DOS vector. If userspace is malicious
rather than buggy, couldn't it simply ignore SIGBUS?

[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191121131522.GX5671@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/