linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] selftests/x86: sysret

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8770815f-0f23-d0c5-e56a-d401827842c9@zytor.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Jan 2023 00:39:26 -0800
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>, Xin Li <xin3.li@...el.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        x86 Mailing List <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kselftest Mailing List 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 1/2] selftests/x86: sysret_rip: Handle syscall in a
 FRED system

On 1/24/23 19:49, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Test that:
> +	 *
> +	 * - "syscall" in a FRED system doesn't clobber %rcx and %r11.
> +	 * - "syscall" in a non-FRED system sets %rcx=%rip and %r11=%rflags.
> +	 */
> +	ret = check_regs_result(r11, rcx, rbx);
> +	assert(ret != REGS_ERROR);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Test that we don't get a mix of REGS_SAVED and REGS_SYSRET.
> +	 * It needs at least calling do_syscall() twice to assert.
> +	 */
> +	if (regs_ok_state == REGS_UNDEFINED) {
> +		/*
> +		 * First time calling do_syscall().
> +		 */
> +		regs_ok_state = ret;
> +	} else {
> +		assert(regs_ok_state == ret);
> +	}
> +

[...]

> +	ret = check_regs_result(ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_R11],
> +				ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RCX],
> +				ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RBX]);
> +
> +	assert(ret != REGS_ERROR);
> +

This instance, too, needs to be checked against regs_ok_result. It would 
make most sense to move that handling, and the assert() into 
check_regs_result() or into a separate function around it.

>   	/* Set IP and CX to match so that SYSRET can happen. */
>   	ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RIP] = rip;
>   	ctx->uc_mcontext.gregs[REG_RCX] = rip;

It would be interesting to have the syscall handler try both with and 
without this (so it would end up doing both IRET and SYSCALL on legacy.) 
Perhaps SIGUSR1 versus SIGUSR2...

	-hpa