linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Move TSS and LDT to end of the GDT

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: <CAHk-=whgooqaEBK27sBMHob9+PwqaZghEsGnSVJsHK=y8U05tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 10:51:11 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Move TSS and LDT to end of the GDT

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 at 08:34, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>
> This will make testing for system segments easier.

It seems to make more sense organizationally too, with the special
non-data/code segments clearly separate at the end.

So I think this is fine conceptually.

HOWEVER, I think that you might want to expand on this a bit more,
because there are other special segments selectors that might not be
thing you want to expose to user space.

We have GDT_ENTRY_PERCPU for example, which is a kernel-only segment.
It also happens to be 32-bit only, it doesn't matter for the thing
you're trying to fix, but that valid_user_selector() thing is then
used on x86-32 too.

So the ESPFIX and per-cpu segments are kernel-only, but then the VDSO
getcpu one is a user segment.

And the PnP and APM BIOS segments are similarly kernel-only.

But then the VDSO getcpu segment is user-visible, in the middle, and
again, it's 32-bit only but that whole GDT_SYSTEM_START thing is
supposed to work there too.

End result: this seems incomplete and not really fully baked.

I wonder if instead of GDT_SYSTEM_START, you'd be better off just
making a trivial constant bitmap of "these are user visible segments
in the GDT". No need to re-order things, just have something like

   #define USER_SEGMENTS_MASK \
        ((1ul << GDT_ENTRY_DEFAULT_USER_CS) |
         ,,,,

and use that for the test (remember to check for GDT_ENTRIES as the max).

Hmm?

             Linus