linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arch: x86: power: cpu: init %gs before __restore_processor

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: <CAOGAQepVWwMvA_m_kZpwQ4UN+ziR+=w2auiL1euFyuGvyCU7SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 16:28:57 -0700
From:   Roman Kiryanov <rkir@...gle.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mingo@...hat.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Alistair Delva <adelva@...gle.com>,
        Haitao Shan <hshan@...gle.com>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: x86: power: cpu: init %gs before
 __restore_processor_state (clang)

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 3:25 PM Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue 2020-09-15 11:36:13, Roman Kiryanov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 11:27 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> > > > I believe the kernel makes a questionable assumption on how clang
> > > > uses registers (gs will not be used if stack protection is disabled).
> > > > Both kernel and clang behaves unfortunate here.
> > >
> > > If the kernel is at fault here and this same thing happens with GCC,
> > > sure, but this is a clang-specific fix.
> >
> > This is fair. Unfortunately I am not an x86 asm expert. I expect the proper
> > fix should land into arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.S to init %gs
> > (maybe some more registers) before "jmp restore_processor_state".
>
> That would certainly be nicer / more acceptable solution than patch
> being proposed here.
>
> Code was written with assumption compiler random C code would not use
> %gs. If that's no longer true, fixing it in wakeup_64.S _with comments
> explaining what goes on_ might be solution.

I looked and restore_processor_state is referenced in several places,
so changing
wakeup_64.S is not enough. Is moving the beginning of restore_processor_state
to an .S file ok? I see restore_processor_state initializes CR registers first,
do you know if there is a reason to do so (can I init segment
registers before CR ones)?

Regards,
Roman.