linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] x86: Pin cr4 FSGSBASE

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]

Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 09:57:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        sashal@...nel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] x86: Pin cr4 FSGSBASE

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:56:18AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:28:48PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Since there seem to be kernel modules floating around that set
> > FSGSBASE incorrectly, prevent this in the CR4 pinning. Currently
> > CR4 pinning just checks that bits are set, this also checks
> > that the FSGSBASE bit is not set, and if it is clears it again.
> 
> So we are trying to "protect" ourselves from broken out-of-tree kernel
> modules now?  Why stop with this type of check, why not just forbid them
> entirely if we don't trust them?  :)

Oh, I have a bunch of patches pending for that :-)

It will basically decode the module text and refuse to load the module
for most CPL0 instruction.