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]

Date:   Tue, 3 Oct 2023 17:36:27 +0530
From:   Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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)

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] 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/keyrings/patch/1602065268-26017-2-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org/#23683269

-Sumit

>
> Side note: the same is true of the init-time call, which does
>
>                  static_call_update(trusted_key_init,
>                                     trusted_key_sources[i].ops->init);
>                  ...
>                  ret = static_call(trusted_key_init)();
>
> which again is a *lot* more expensive than just doing the indirect
> function call.
>
> So while I don't think your patch is wrong, I do think that the cause
> here is plain silly code, and that trusted key code simply should not
> do the crazy thing it does (and that causes silly problems).
>
>                 Linus
>