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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CE363373-A1D0-4B03-A046-F4686597766F@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2023 13:09:20 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: Move TSS and LDT to end of the GDT

On December 13, 2023 10:51:11 AM PST, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>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

Somewhat unrelated: X86_BUG_ESPFIX should just be deleted, as we aren't actually ever cleaning it. All current x86 processors have that problem (until FRED).