[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4b9c6208d1174c27a795cef487eb97b5@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 10:17:57 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Dave Hansen' <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, "Jann Horn" <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V . Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"joao.moreira@...el.com" <joao.moreira@...el.com>,
John Allen <john.allen@....com>,
"kcc@...gle.com" <kcc@...gle.com>,
"eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"rppt@...nel.org" <rppt@...nel.org>,
"jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com" <jamorris@...ux.microsoft.com>,
"dethoma@...rosoft.com" <dethoma@...rosoft.com>,
Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 24/39] x86/cet/shstk: Add user-mode shadow stack
support
From: Dave Hansen
> Sent: 03 October 2022 21:05
>
> On 10/3/22 12:43, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> +static inline void set_clr_bits_msrl(u32 msr, u64 set, u64 clear)
> >> +{
> >> + u64 val, new_val;
> >> +
> >> + rdmsrl(msr, val);
> >> + new_val = (val & ~clear) | set;
> >> +
> >> + if (new_val != val)
> >> + wrmsrl(msr, new_val);
> >> +}
> > I always get uncomfortable when I see these kinds of generalized helper
> > functions for touching cpu bits, etc. It just begs for future attacker
> > abuse to muck with arbitrary bits -- even marked inline there is a risk
> > the compiler will ignore that in some circumstances (not as currently
> > used in the code, but I'm imagining future changes leading to such a
> > condition). Will you humor me and change this to a macro instead? That'll
> > force it always inline (even __always_inline isn't always inline):
>
> Oh, are you thinking that this is dangerous because it's so surgical and
> non-intrusive? It's even more powerful to an attacker than, say
> wrmsrl(), because there they actually have to know what the existing
> value is to update it. With this helper, it's quite easy to flip an
> individual bit without disturbing the neighboring bits.
>
> Is that it?
>
> I don't _like_ the #defines, but doing one here doesn't seem too onerous
> considering how critical MSRs are.
How often is the 'msr' number not a compile-time constant?
Adding rd/wrmsr variants that verify this would reduce the
attack surface as well.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists