[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgOxf3u-4qp9z+50y93dw2aj_nnx3Y8zLo_GGBA4U92BQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2023 13:40:53 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>, 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>, Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/sigreturn: Reject system segements
On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 at 13:08, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> On December 13, 2023 10:54:00 AM PST, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
]> >Side note: the SS/CS checks could be stricter than the usual selector tests.
> >
> >In particular, normal segments can be Null segments. But CS/SS must not be.
> >
> >Also, since you're now checking the validity, maybe we shouldn't do
> >the "force cpl3" any more, and just make it an error to try to load a
> >non-cpl3 segment at sigreturn..
> >
> >That forcing was literally just because we weren't checking it for sanity...
> >
> > Linus
>
> Not to mention that changing a null descriptor to 3 is wrong.
I don't think it is. All of 0-3 are "Null selectors". The RPL of the
selector simply doesn't matter when the index is zero, afaik.
But we obviously only do this for CS/SS, which can't be (any kind of)
Null selector and iret will GP on them regardless of the RPL in the
selector.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists