linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 9/9] x86/cpu: Enable LASS by default during CPU initialization

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: <ed1a6e12-68cb-4103-946a-761260d18eab@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 09:53:41 -0700
From: "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>
To: "Sohil Mehta" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
 "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
 "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
 "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
 "Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
 "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
 "Ard Biesheuvel" <ardb@...nel.org>, "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kas@...nel.org>,
 "Xin Li" <xin@...or.com>, "David Woodhouse" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
 "Sean Christopherson" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
 "Rick P Edgecombe" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
 "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
 "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
 "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
 "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@...ux-m68k.org>, "Kees Cook" <kees@...nel.org>,
 "Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
 "Alexander Shishkin" <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 9/9] x86/cpu: Enable LASS by default during CPU initialization

On Thu, Oct 30, 2025, at 9:44 AM, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> On 10/30/2025 8:45 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025, at 1:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> Legacy vsyscalls have been obsolete for how long now?
>> 
>> A looooong time.
>> 
>> I would suggest defaulting LASS to on and *maybe* decoding just enough to log, once per boot, that a legacy vsyscall may have been attempted. It’s too bad that #GP doesn’t report the faulting address.
>> 
>
> Unfortunately, CONFIG_X86_VSYSCALL_EMULATION defaults to y. Also, the
> default Vsyscall mode is XONLY. So even if vsyscalls are deprecated,
> there is a non-zero possibility someone would complain about it.
>
> My primary goal here is to get the base LASS series merged (soonish)
> with the simplest possible option.
>
> I am planning to follow-up immediately with a vsyscall specific series
> that relaxes *most* restrictions.
>
> IIUC, supporting XONLY mode with LASS probably does not need complicated
> decoding because the vsyscall address is available in the faulting RIP.
>
> The spec says:
> "LASS for instruction fetches applies when the linear address in RIP is
> used to load an instruction from memory. Unlike canonicality checking
> (see Section 4.5.2), LASS does not apply to branch instructions that
> load RIP. A branch instruction can load RIP with an address that would
> violate LASS. Only when the address is used to fetch an instruction will
> a LASS violation occur, generating a #GP. (The return instruction
> pointer of the #GP handler is the address that incurred the LASS
> violation.)"
>
> I attempted to do that in the last revision here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20251007065119.148605-9-sohil.mehta@intel.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20251007065119.148605-11-sohil.mehta@intel.com/
>
> On the other hand, supporting EMULATE mode during a #GP is a bit tricky,
> which isn't worth the effort.

I would say it's definitely worth the effort, but it probably does make sense to get the rest of the series in a mergeable condition such that it only works with vsyscall=none.