linux-kernel - Re: [patch V3 01/13] entry: Provide generic syscall entry functionality

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <A790AF9D-3BF7-4FEE-9E29-7C13FA3FE0C3@amacapital.net>
Date:   Sun, 19 Jul 2020 08:25:05 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
        Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 01/13] entry: Provide generic syscall entry functionality



> On Jul 19, 2020, at 3:17 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> 
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
>>> On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 7:16 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
>>>> FWIW, TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY is a bit of an odd duck: it's an
>>>> entry/exit word *and* a context switch word.  The latter is because
>>>> it's logically a per-cpu flag, not a per-task flag, and the context
>>>> switch code moves it around so it's always set on the running task.
>>> 
>>> Gah, I missed the context switch thing of that. That stuff is hideous.
>> 
>> It's also delightful because anything that screws up that dance (such
>> as failure to do the exit-to-usermode path exactly right) likely
>> results in an insta-root-hole.  If we fail to run user return
>> notifiers, we can run user code with incorrect syscall MSRs, etc.
> 
> Looking at it deeper, having that thing in the loop is a pointless
> exercise. This really wants to be done _after_ the loop.
> 

As long as we’re confident that nothing after the loop can set the flag again.

> Thanks,
> 
>        tglx