netdev - Re: [PATCH 16/18] net: mpls: prevent bounds-check bypass via speculative execution

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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:33:18 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Elena Reshetova <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
        Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] net: mpls: prevent bounds-check bypass via
 speculative execution

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 7:42 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > originally from Linus and tweaked by Alexei and I:
>>
>> Sadly, that tweak - while clever - is wrong.
>>
>> >         unsigned long _mask = ~(long)(_m - 1 - _i) >> BITS_PER_LONG - 1;\
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because "(long)(_m-1-_i)" is not negative just because "i >= m". It
>> can still be positive.
>>
>> Think "m = 100", "i=bignum". The subtraction will overflow and become
>> positive again, the shift will shift to zero, and then the mask will
>> become ~0.
>>
>> Now, you can fix it, but you need to be a tiny bit more clever.  In
>> particular, just make sure that you retain the high bit of "_i",
>> basically making the rule be that a negative index is not ever valid.
>>
>> And then instead of "(_m - 1 - _i)", you use "(_i | (_m - 1 - _i))".
>> Now the sign bit is set if _i had it set, _or_ if the subtraction
>> turned negative, and you don't have to worry about the overflow
>> situation.
>>
>> But it does require that extra step to be trustworthy. Still purely
>> cheap arithmetic operations, although there is possibly some
>> additional register pressure there.
>>
>> Somebody might be able to come up with something even more minimal (or
>> find a fault in my fix of your tweak).
>
> I looks like there is another problem, or I'm misreading the
> cleverness. We want the mask to be ~0 in the ok case and 0 in the
> out-of-bounds case. As far as I can see we end up with ~0 in the ok
> case, and ~1 in the bad case. Don't we need to do something like the
> following, at which point are we getting out of the realm of "cheap
> ALU instructions"?
>
> #define __nospec_array_ptr(base, idx, sz)                               \
> ({                                                                      \
>         union { typeof(&base[0]) _ptr; unsigned long _bit; } __u;       \
>         unsigned long _i = (idx);                                       \
>         unsigned long _s = (sz);                                        \
>         unsigned long _v = (long)(_i | _s - 1 - _i)                     \
>                                         >> BITS_PER_LONG - 1;           \
>         unsigned long _mask = _v * ~0UL;                                 \
>         OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(_mask);                                      \
>         __u._ptr = &base[_i & _mask];                                   \
>         __u._bit &= _mask;                                              \
>         __u._ptr;                                                       \
> })

Sorry, I'm slow of course ~(-1L) is 0.