linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/20] x86: decompressor: Avoid the need for a stack in the 32-bit trampoline

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]

Date:   Thu, 18 May 2023 16:55:55 +0200
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Cc:     linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Evgeniy Baskov <baskov@...ras.ru>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
        Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
        Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>,
        Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@....com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/20] x86: decompressor: Avoid the need for a stack in
 the 32-bit trampoline

On Thu, 18 May 2023 at 00:40, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com> wrote:
>
> On 5/8/23 02:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > The 32-bit trampoline no longer uses the stack for anything except
> > performing a long return back to long mode. Currently, this stack is
> > allocated in the same page that carries the trampoline code, which means
> > this page must be mapped writable and executable, and the stack is
> > therefore executable as well.
> >
> > So let's do a long jump instead: that way, we can pre-calculate the
> > return address and poke it into the code before we call it. In a later
> > patch, we will take advantage of this by removing writable permissions
> > (and adding executable ones) explicitly when booting via the EFI stub.
> >
> > Not playing with the stack pointer also makes it more straight-forward
> > to call the trampoline code as an ordinary 64-bit function from C code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S    | 34 ++++----------------
> >   arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable.h    |  6 ++--
> >   arch/x86/boot/compressed/pgtable_64.c | 12 ++++++-
> >   3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S
> > index b1f8a867777120bb..3b5fc851737ffc39 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S
> > +++ b/arch/x86/boot/compressed/head_64.S
> > @@ -460,9 +460,6 @@ SYM_CODE_START(startup_64)
> >       leaq    TRAMPOLINE_32BIT_CODE_OFFSET(%rax), %rax
> >       call    *%rax
> >
> > -     /* Restore the stack, the 32-bit trampoline uses its own stack */
> > -     leaq    rva(boot_stack_end)(%rbx), %rsp
> > -
> >       /*
> >        * cleanup_trampoline() would restore trampoline memory.
> >        *
> > @@ -563,24 +560,17 @@ SYM_FUNC_END(.Lrelocated)
> >    * EDI contains the base address of the trampoline memory.
> >    * Non-zero ESI means trampoline needs to enable 5-level paging.
> >    */
> > +     .section ".rodata", "a", @progbits
> >   SYM_CODE_START(trampoline_32bit_src)
> > -     popq    %r8
> >       /* Switch to compatibility mode (CS.L = 0 CS.D = 1) via far return */
> >       pushq   $__KERNEL32_CS
> >       leaq    0f(%rip), %rax
> >       pushq   %rax
> >       lretq
> > +.Lret:       retq
>
> Maybe just add a comment above this to explain that this is a target of
> the long jump below to get back into long mode and be able to return
> without setting up a new stack for the 32-bit code.
>
> And then a corresponding comment on the long jump itself. I think it would
> make it easier to understand what is going on in this part of the code.
>

Fair point. I'll add that in the next version.