[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241024110822.GBZxoqppmxp0xxG7ew@fat_crate.local>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:08:22 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix user address masking non-canonical speculation
issue
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 06:31:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> +static inline void __user *mask_user_address(const void __user *ptr)
> +{
> + void __user *ret;
> + asm("cmp %1,%0; sbb %0,%0; or %1,%0"
> + :"=r" (ret)
> + :"r" (ptr),
> + "0" (runtime_const_ptr(USER_PTR_MAX)));
> + return ret;
> +}
Can we make this more readable pls?
Something like this:
static inline void __user *mask_user_address(const void __user *ptr)
{
void __user *ret;
asm("cmp %[ptr],%[ret]\n\t"
"sbb %[ret],%[ret]\n\t"
"or %[ptr],%[ret]"
: [ret] "=r" (ret)
: [ptr] "r" (ptr),
"0" (runtime_const_ptr(USER_PTR_MAX)));
return ret;
}
This way the compiler-generated asm is more readable too due to the newlines
and tabs.
In any case, it looks good, I single-stepped strnlen_user() and I got:
# move the constant
movabs $0x7ffffffff000,%rdi
# the user pointer: rax = 0x7ffcb6839fdf
cmp %rax,%rdi
sbb %rdi,%rdi
# rdi = 0x0
or %rax,%rdi
# rdi = 0x7ffcb6839fdf
stac
and user pointer is in %rdi.
Then, on the next breakpoint, I modified the user pointer:
gdb> set $rax = 0xfffcb6839fd9
cmp %rax,%rdi
sbb %rdi,%rdi
# rdi = 0xffffffffffffffff -1
# flags are set
eflags 0x297 [ IOPL=0 IF SF AF PF CF ]
or %rax,%rdi
# user pointer is -1, do_strnlen_user() will try to work with -1 and fault...
> @@ -2389,6 +2390,15 @@ void __init arch_cpu_finalize_init(void)
> alternative_instructions();
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64)) {
> + unsigned long USER_PTR_MAX = TASK_SIZE_MAX;
> +
> + /*
> + * Enable this when LAM is gated on LASS support
> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_LAM))
> + USER_PTR_MAX = (1ul << 63) - PAGE_SIZE;
> + */
> + runtime_const_init(ptr, USER_PTR_MAX);
Looking at Documentation/arch/x86/x86_64/mm.rst, 5 level page tables define
USR_PTR_MAX as 0x00ffffffffffffff, i.e., bits [55:0].
So I guess that USER_PTR_MAX needs to look at X86_FEATURE_LA57, no?
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists