linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/idt: Make sure idt

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]

Date:   Sat, 18 Jul 2020 22:34:05 -0400
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
To:     hpa@...or.com
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        x86@...nel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/idt: Make sure idt_table takes a whole page

On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 06:15:26PM -0700, hpa@...or.com wrote:
> On July 18, 2020 12:25:46 PM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 18, 2020, at 10:57 AM, hpa@...or.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> On July 9, 2020 3:33:55 AM PDT, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
> >wrote:
> >>> From: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
> >>> 
> >>> On x86-32 the idt_table with 256 entries needs only 2048 bytes. It
> >is
> >>> page-aligned, but the end of the .bss..page_aligned section is not
> >>> guaranteed to be page-aligned.
> >>> 
> >>> As a result, symbols from other .bss sections may end up on the same
> >>> 4k page as the idt_table, and will accidentially get mapped
> >read-only
> >>> during boot, causing unexpected page-faults when the kernel writes
> >to
> >>> them.
> >>> 
> >>> Avoid this by making the idt_table 4kb in size even on x86-32. On
> >>> x86-64 the idt_table is already 4kb large, so nothing changes there.
> >>> 
> >>> Fixes: 3e77abda65b1c ("x86/idt: Consolidate idt functionality")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
> >> 
> >> NAK... this isn't the right way to fix this and just really kicks the
> >can down the road. The reason is that you aren't fixing the module that
> >actually has a problem.
> >> 
> >> The Right Way[TM] is to figure out which module(s) lack the proper
> >alignment for this section. A script using objdump -h or readelf -SW
> >running over the .o files looking for alignment less than 2**12 should
> >spot the modules that are missing the proper .balign directives.
> >
> >I don’t see the problem. If we are going to treat an object as though
> >it’s 4096 bytes, making C think it’s 4096 bytes seems entirely
> >reasonable to me.
> >
> >> -- 
> >
> >> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> 
> It isn't the object, it is its alignment. You can have an object
> page-aligned so it doesn't cross page boundaries.
> 
> The bigger issue, though, is that this means there are other object
> files which don't have the correct alignment directives, which means
> that this error can crop up again at any point. The really important
> thing here is that we fix the real problem.  -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

To repeat the commit message, the problem is not misaligned
bss..page_aligned objects, but symbols in _other_ bss sections, which
can get allocated in the last page of bss..page_aligned, because its end
isn't page-aligned (maybe it should be?)

bss..page_aligned objects are unlikely to be misaligned, because its
used in C via a macro that includes the alignment attribute, and its
only use in x86 assembly is in head_{32,64}.S which have correct
alignment.

Given that this IDT's page is actually going to be mapped with different
page protections, it seems like allocating the full page isn't
unreasonable.