linux-kernel - Re: x86, possible bug in __memmove() alternatives patching

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]

Date:   Sat, 26 Mar 2022 12:39:23 +0100
From:   Matthias Welwarsky <matthias.welwarsky@...go.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: x86, possible bug in __memmove() alternatives patching

On Samstag, 26. März 2022 05:45:24 CET Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/25/22 15:07, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > I know it's is probably a very rare case and Intel recommends having fast
> > string ops enabled, hence the question: would this be considered a bug in
> > the kernel that should be fixed? A potential fix could be to clear FSRM
> > together with ERMS depending on IA32_MISC_ENABLE.
> 
> I'd consider it a bug in the hypervisor, personally. ;)

Of course, no doubt about that.

> But, we do try to make the kernel work even the face of funky
> hypervisors that do things that never occur on real hardware.  If a nice
> patch to fix this up showed up, I'd definitely take a look.

The question is whether a sequence like this could be relevant:

0) CPU announces feature FSRM through cpuid
1) BIOS/firmware disables fast string ops through IA32_MISC_ENABLE before 
loading kernel (for whatever reason)
2) Kernel populates features from cpuid
3) Kernel clears ERMS based on IA32_MISC_ENABLE
4) "alternatives" patching destroys __memmove()

That depends on whether a cpuid instruction after step 1) would still announce 
FSRM. If not, then the whole point is moot and no patch needed (unless we want 
to guard against hypervisor bugs).

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen/Best regards,

Matthias Welwarsky
Project Engineer

SYSGO GmbH
Office Mainz
Am Pfaffenstein 8 / D-55270 Klein-Winternheim / Germany
Phone: +49-6136-9948-0 / Fax: +49-6136-9948-10
E-mail: matthias.welwarsky@...go.com
_________________________________________________________________________________
Web: https://www.sysgo.com
Blog: https://www.sysgo.com/blog
Events: https://www.sysgo.com/events
Newsletter: https://www.sysgo.com/newsletter
_________________________________________________________________________________
Handelsregister/Commercial Registry: HRB Mainz 90 HRB 48884 
Geschäftsführung/Managing Directors: Etienne Butery (CEO), Kai Sablotny (COO) 
USt-Id-Nr./VAT-Id-No.: DE 149062328 

The protection of your personal data is important to us. Under the following 
link 
you can see the information in accordance with article 13 GDPR: 
https://www.sysgo.com/privacy_policy