linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] perf/core: Fake regs for leaked kernel samples

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: <20200806092454.GE35926@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 6 Aug 2020 11:24:54 +0200
From:   peterz@...radead.org
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        jolsa@...nel.org, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] perf/core: Fake regs for leaked kernel samples

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 11:18:27AM +0200, peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:26:29AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> > > +static struct pt_regs *sanitize_sample_regs(struct perf_event *event, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct pt_regs *sample_regs = regs;
> > > +
> > > +	/* user only */
> > > +	if (!event->attr.exclude_kernel || !event->attr.exclude_hv ||
> > > +	    !event->attr.exclude_host   || !event->attr.exclude_guest)
> > > +		return sample_regs;
> > > +
> > 
> > Is this condition correct?
> > 
> > Say counting user event on host, exclude_kernel = 1 and exclude_host = 0. It
> > will go "return sample_regs" path.
> 
> I'm not sure, I'm terminally confused on virt stuff.

[A]

> Suppose we have nested virt:
> 
> 	L0-hv
> 	|
> 	G0/L1-hv
> 	   |
> 	   G1
> 
> And we're running in G0, then:
> 
>  - 'exclude_hv' would exclude L0 events
>  - 'exclude_host' would ... exclude L1-hv events?
>  - 'exclude_guest' would ... exclude G1 events?

[B]

> Then the next question is, if G0 is a host, does the L1-hv run in
> G0 userspace or G0 kernel space?
> 
> I was assuming G0 userspace would not include anything L1 (kvm is a
> kernel module after all), but what do I know.
> 
> > > @@ -11609,7 +11636,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
> > >   	if (err)
> > >   		return err;
> > > -	if (!attr.exclude_kernel) {
> > > +	if (!attr.exclude_kernel || !attr.exclude_callchain_kernel ||
> > > +	    !attr.exclude_hv || !attr.exclude_host || !attr.exclude_guest) {
> > >   		err = perf_allow_kernel(&attr);
> > >   		if (err)
> > >   			return err;
> > > 
> > 
> > I can understand the conditions "!attr.exclude_kernel || !attr.exclude_callchain_kernel".
> > 
> > But I'm not very sure about the "!attr.exclude_hv || !attr.exclude_host || !attr.exclude_guest".
> 
> Well, I'm very sure G0 userspace should never see L0 or G1 state, so
> exclude_hv and exclude_guest had better be true.
> 
> > On host, exclude_hv = 1, exclude_guest = 1 and exclude_host = 0, right?
> 
> Same as above, is G0 host state G0 userspace?
> 
> > So even exclude_kernel = 1 but exclude_host = 0, we will still go
> > perf_allow_kernel path. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.
> 
> Yes, because with those permission checks in place it means you have
> permission to see kernel bits.

So if I understand 'exclude_host' wrong -- a distinct possibility -- can
we then pretty please have the above [A-B] corrected and put in a
comment near perf_event_attr and the exclude_* comments changed to refer
to that?