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:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:30:56 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>,
        "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] x86/cpu fsgsbase breaks TLS in 32 bit rr tracees on
 a 64 bit system

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 4:52 PM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-08-24 14:10, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > PTRACE_READ_SEGMENT_DESCRIPTOR to read a segment descriptor.
> >
> > PTRACE_SET_FS / PTRACE_SET_GS: Sets FS or GS and updates the base accordingly.
> >
> > PTRACE_READ_SEGMENT_BASE: pass in a segment selector, get a base out.
> > You would use this to populate the base fields.
> >
> > or perhaps a ptrace SETREGS variant that tries to preserve the old
> > base semantics and magically sets the bases to match the selectors if
> > the selectors are nonzero.
> >
> > Do any of these choices sound preferable to any of you?
> >
>
> My suggestion would be to export the GDT and LDT as a (readonly or mostly
> readonly) regset(s) rather than adding entirely new operations. We could allow
> the LDT and the per-thread GDT entries to be written, subject to the same
> limitations as the corresponding system calls.
>

That seems useful, although we'd want to do some extensive
sanitization of the GDT.  But maybe it's obnoxious to ask Kyle and
Robert to parse the GDT, LDT, and selector just to emulate the
demented pre-5.9 ptrace() behavior.

--Andy

Powered by blists - more mailing lists