linux-kernel - RE: in_compat

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: <cb9ca8138c664b8bacb26521e9a604fc@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:46:24 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: in_compat_syscall() on x86

Copy x86@...nel.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
> Sent: 04 January 2021 12:17
> To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>; Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: in_compat_syscall() on x86
> 
> On x86 in_compat_syscall() is defined as:
>     in_ia32_syscall() || in_x32_syscall()
> 
> Now in_ia32_syscall() is a simple check of the TS_COMPAT flag.
> However in_x32_syscall() is a horrid beast that has to indirect
> through to the original %eax value (ie the syscall number) and
> check for a bit there.
> 
> So on a kernel with x32 support (probably most distro kernels)
> the in_compat_syscall() check is rather more expensive than
> one might expect.
> 
> It would be muck better if both checks could be done together.
> I think this would require the syscall entry code to set a
> value in both the 64bit and x32 entry paths.
> (Can a process make both 64bit and x32 system calls?)
> 
> To do this sensible (probably) requires a byte be allocated
> to hold the syscall type - rather than using flag bits
> in the 'status' field.
> 
> Apart from the syscall entry, the exec code seems to change
> the syscall type to that of the binary being executed.
> I didn't spot anything else that changes the fields.
> 
> But I failed to find the full list of allocated bits for
> the 'status' field.
> 
> 	David
> 
> -
> Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
> Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)