linux-kernel - Re: the x86 sysret_rip test fails on the Intel FRED architecture

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: <096C16C1-5139-4775-8B45-B5A33F1C6F6D@zytor.com>
Date:   Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:17:08 -0800
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: the x86 sysret_rip test fails on the Intel FRED architecture

On January 20, 2023 1:10:09 PM PST, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
>On 20/01/2023 8:50 pm, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On January 20, 2023 10:52:02 AM PST, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2023 5:45 pm, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/23 23:49, Li, Xin3 wrote:
>>>>> The x86 sysret_rip test has the following assertion:
>>>>>
>>>>>         /* R11 and EFLAGS should already match. */
>>>>>         assert(ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_EFL] ==
>>>>>                ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_R11]);
>>>>>
>>>>> This is being tested to avoid kernel state leak due to sysret vs iret,
>>>>> but that on FRED r11 is *always* preserved, and the test just fails.
>>>> Let's figure out the reason that FRED acts differently, first.  Right
>>>> now, the SDM says:
>>>>
>>>> 	SYSCALL also saves RFLAGS into R11
>>>>
>>>> so that behavior of SYSCALL _looks_ architectural to me.  Was this
>>>> change in SYSCALL behavior with FRED intentional?
>>> FRED 3.0 Section 7.4 says the only changes for the SYSCALL and SYSENTER
>>> instructions are the enablement conditions.  Nowhere else is there
>>> mention of a FRED OS needing to emulate legacy syscall behaviour by
>>> adjusting %r11/%rcx
>>>
>>> However, ERETU does handle flags different to SYSRET (in particular, I
>>> think you can establish TF on the instruction boundary after SYSCALL
>>> now).  What are the raw values of REG_EFL and REG_R11 ?
>>>
>>> ~Andrew
>>>
>> Just to avoid any confusion:
>>
>> Syscall and sysenter in a FRED system are treated equivalently to software interrupts, e.g. INT 0x80. They do not modify any registers.
>
>In which case can Intel please publish a v4 spec which actually says this?
>
>I can't see anything in the v3 spec which mentions a change in register
>behaviour for SYSCALL.
>
>~Andrew
>

I'll make sure it makes it into the next update.