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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87a6zuof39.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jul 2020 08:50:02 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
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

Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> writes:
>> 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.

Yes, because that's the direct way off to user space.

Thanks,

        tglx