linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/smap: Fix the smap

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:43:39 -0700
From:   Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>
To:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
        John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>,
        "# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smap: Fix the smap_save() asm

On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 4:40 PM Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
>
> On 16/09/2020 00:11, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Sep 15, 2020, at 2:24 PM, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 1:56 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>> The old smap_save() code was:
> >>>
> >>>  pushf
> >>>  pop %0
> >>>
> >>> with %0 defined by an "=rm" constraint.  This is fine if the
> >>> compiler picked the register option, but it was incorrect with an
> >>> %rsp-relative memory operand.
> >> It is incorrect because ... (I think mentioning the point about the
> >> red zone would be good, unless there were additional concerns?)
> > This isn’t a red zone issue — it’s a just-plain-wrong issue.  The popf is storing the result in the wrong place in memory — it’s RSP-relative, but RSP is whatever the compiler thinks it should be minus 8, because the compiler doesn’t know that pushfq changed RSP.
>
> It's worse than that.  Even when stating that %rsp is modified in the
> asm, the generated code sequence is still buggy, for recent Clang and GCC.
>
> https://godbolt.org/z/ccz9v7
>
> It's clearly not safe to ever use memory operands with pushf/popf asm
> fragments.
>
Would this apply to native_save_fl() and native_restore_fl in
arch/x86/include/asm/irqflags.h? It was like that two revisions ago,
but it was changed (back) to "=rm" with a comment about it being safe.

> >> This is something we should fix.  Bill, James, and I are discussing
> >> this internally.  Thank you for filing a bug; I owe you a beer just
> >> for that.
> > I’m looking forward to the day that beers can be exchanged in person again :)
>
> +1 to that.
>
+100

-bw