linux-kernel - Re: Linux 6.6-rc3 (DEBUG_VIRTUAL is unhappy on x86)

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: <20231003164157.GH1539@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:41:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>,
        David Kaplan <David.Kaplan@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 6.6-rc3 (DEBUG_VIRTUAL is unhappy on x86)

On Tue, Oct 03, 2023 at 05:36:27PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> On 10/2/23 02:18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 at 07:17, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > Peter Zijlstra (1):
> > > > >        x86,static_call: Fix static-call vs return-thunk
> > > > Hello, the commit above caused a crash on x86 kernel with
> > > > CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL=y.
> > > OK, I looked into this a little bit, and it turns out that the problematic
> > > address here is from cleanup_trusted() in
> > > security/keys/trusted-keys/trusted_core.c.
> > > (and it's builtin due to CONFIG_TRUSTED_KEYS=y)
> > > 
> > > The function is marked as __exit, so it does not fall within the
> > > 'core kernel text address range,' which is between _stext and _etext
> > > (or between _sinittext and _einittext). and thus __text_poke() thinks that
> > > it's vmalloc/module area.
> > > 
> > > I think __text_poke() should be taught that functions marked as __exit
> > > also belong to kernel code just like __init.
> > I think your patch is fine (well, whitespace-damaged, but conceptually good).
> > 
> > But I also wonder about that
> > 
> >          static_call_cond(trusted_key_exit)();
> > 
> > in cleanup_trusted(). It seems all kinds of pointless to use static
> > calls for something that is done *once*. That's not an optimization,
> > that's honestly just _stupid_. It costs more to do the rewriting that
> > it does to just do the one dynamic indirect call.
> 
> That's true, there isn't any real performance benefit here. It is something
> which I mentioned when I was asked to incorporate it here [1]. However, on
> the flip side I think there are security benefits here. We wouldn't like any
> indirect branch speculation attack to leak the trusted key material contents
> here.

1) retpolines;
2) if you can unload modules, you've got bigger problems.