[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200828192911.ezqspexfb2gtvrr7@treble>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:29:11 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Use pointer masking to limit uaccess
speculation
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:50:06AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> The x86 uaccess code uses barrier_nospec() in various places to prevent
> speculative dereferencing of user-controlled pointers (which might be
> combined with further gadgets or CPU bugs to leak data).
>
> There are some issues with the current implementation:
>
> - The barrier_nospec() in copy_from_user() was inadvertently removed
> with: 4b842e4e25b1 ("x86: get rid of small constant size cases in
> raw_copy_{to,from}_user()")
>
> - copy_to_user() and friends should also have a speculation barrier,
> because a speculative write to a user-controlled address can still
> populate the cache line with the original data.
>
> - The LFENCE in barrier_nospec() is overkill, when more lightweight user
> pointer masking can be used instead.
>
> Remove all existing barrier_nospec() usage, and instead do user pointer
> masking, throughout the x86 uaccess code. This is similar to what arm64
> is already doing.
>
> barrier_nospec() is now unused, and can be removed.
>
> Fixes: 4b842e4e25b1 ("x86: get rid of small constant size cases in raw_copy_{to,from}_user()")
> Suggested-by: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Ping?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists