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: <SA1PR11MB67344F0957245A2BC8CA57B7A8CB9@SA1PR11MB6734.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sun, 22 Jan 2023 08:22:39 +0000
From:   "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To:     "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...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 21, 2023 8:34:09 PM PST, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> wrote:
> >On 1/21/23 19:38, Li, Xin3 wrote:
> >>> However, it doesn't seem to make sense to do so to me. The current
> >>> behavior is much more of an artifact than desired behavior.
> >> We kind of have an agreement that %r11 = %flags after returning from the
> kernel.
> >>
> >> And the question is, is it what we want?
> >
> >Can the selftest just set r11=rflags before the syscall?  The old
> >syscall entry path will set r11=rflags.  The FRED path won't touch it.
> >Either case will pass an r11==rflags check.
> 
> That's a good idea.

The problem is where/how to set %r11 = %rflags in the test code.

The check happens in the USER1 signal handler, and we could set %r11
just before calling raise(SIGUSR1).  However, the C library implementation
of raise() modifies %r11, thus we can't preserve %r11 until the SYSCALL
instruction. And the test still fails.

Thanks!
  XIn