linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/24] x86/entry: Add C version of SWAPGS and SWAPGS_UNSAFE

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

Message-ID: <c5485ba4-3652-8c98-c485-918d322c015e@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Nov 2020 19:04:49 +0100
From:   Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/24] x86/entry: Add C version of SWAPGS and
 SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK

On 11/9/20 6:38 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:22 AM Alexandre Chartre
> <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> SWAPGS and SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK are assembly macros. Add C versions
>> of these macros (swapgs() and swapgs_unsafe_stack()).
> 
> This needs a very good justification.  It also needs some kind of
> static verification that these helpers are only used by noinstr code,
> and they need to be __always_inline.  And I cannot fathom how C code
> could possibly use SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK in a meaningful way.
> 

You're right, I probably need to revisit the usage of SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK
in C code, that doesn't make sense. Looks like only SWAPGS is then needed.

Or maybe we can just use native_swapgs() instead?

I have added a C version of SWAPGS for moving paranoid_entry() to C because,
in this function, we need to switch CR3 before doing the updating GS. But I
really wonder if we need a paravirt swapgs here, and we can probably just use
native_swapgs().

Also, if we map the per cpu offsets (__per_cpu_offset) in the user page-table
then we will be able to update GS before switching CR3. That way we can keep the
GS update in assembly code, and just do the CR3 switch in C code. This would also
avoid having to disable stack-protector (patch 21).

alex.