linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] x86/uaccess: Avoid barrier

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: <20241017224246.5pcgeeiforndgiha@treble>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:42:46 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] x86/uaccess: Avoid barrier_nospec()

On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:31:30PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Even if you can get Intel and AMD to agree that STAC/CLAC are really
> LFENCEs (and I think you'll struggle), they'd only confer the safety you
> want between a real conditional that excludes the non-canonical range,
> and the pointer deference.
> 
> Any path that genuinely deferences a non-canonical pointer is not safe,
> whatever serialisation you put in the way.  The attacker wins the moment
> the load uop executes.
> 
> The final hunk of patch 1 is safe (iff STAC is given extra guarantees)
> because it is between the conditional and the deference.  Patch 4 is not
> safe (if the comment is correct) because it removes the conditional.

So the naming is confusing:

  - put_user()   implementation is __put_user_*()
  - __put_user() implementation is __put_user_nocheck_*()

Patch 4 only affects __put_user(), for which the user is expected to
call access_ok() beforehand.

The current implementations of get_user(), put_user() and
masked_user_access_begin() avoid the conditional.  Those are the ones it
sounds like you're worried about?

None of my patches remove conditional checks.

-- 
Josh