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: <Ytgzn4A/sF9zY+7t@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:55:59 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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>,
        Andrew Cooper <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>,
        Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
        Joseph Nuzman <joseph.nuzman@...el.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/38] x86/retbleed: Call depth tracking mitigation

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 01:51:14AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So if we assume \func starts with ENDBR, and further assume we've fixed
> up every direct jmp/call to land at +4, we can overwrite the ENDBR with
> part of the SARQ, that leaves us 6 more byte, placing the immediate at
> -10 if I'm not mis-counting.
> 
> Now, the call sites are:
> 
> 41 81 7b fa 78 56 34 12		cmpl	$0x12345678, -6(%r11)
> 74 02				je	1f
> 0f 0b				ud2
> e8 00 00 00 00		1:	call	__x86_indirect_thunk_r11
> 
> That means the offset of +10 lands in the middle of the CALL
> instruction, and since we only have 16 thunks there is a limited number
> of byte patterns available there.
> 
> This really isn't as nice as the -6 but might just work well enough,
> hmm?

I agree, this is probably fine, or at least low enough risk.

Did you have thoughts about changing the check instruction sequence
to split the hash into multiple instructions and thus avoiding this
issue altogether?

Sami