linux-kernel - Re: [patch 00/38] x86/retbleed: Call depth tracking mitigation

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: <CAHk-=wjEDJ4+xg0CWR7CaCKnO6Nhzn+vjJy7CjaVmf9R+g_3ag@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:42:29 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        "Cooper, Andrew" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Johannes Wikner <kwikner@...z.ch>,
        Alyssa Milburn <alyssa.milburn@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
        "Moreira, Joao" <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
        "Nuzman, Joseph" <joseph.nuzman@...el.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Gross, Jurgen" <jgross@...e.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/38] x86/retbleed: Call depth tracking mitigation

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:19 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> But that's an implementation detail, right? Whatever we put in between
> will still be a fixed offset, no? It's a different offset, but that's
> what patching can deal with.

No, what Sami is sayin that because the "cmpl" *inside* the function
that checks the hash value will have that same (valid) hash value
encoded as part of it, then you actually have *two* valid markers with
that hash value.

You have the "real" marker before the function.

But you also have the "false" marker that is part of the hash check
that is *inside* the function.

The "real marker + 6" points to the function head itself, and so is ok
as a target (normal operation).

The "false marker + 6" points to the "UD2", and so is *also* ok as a
target (bad guy trying to mis-use the false marker gets trapped by
UD2).

               Linus