[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180205182140.346867497@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 10:23:02 -0800
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 43/64] x86/get_user: Use pointer masking to limit speculation
4.14-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Dan Williams dan.j.williams@...el.com
commit c7f631cb07e7da06ac1d231ca178452339e32a94
Quoting Linus:
I do think that it would be a good idea to very expressly document
the fact that it's not that the user access itself is unsafe. I do
agree that things like "get_user()" want to be protected, but not
because of any direct bugs or problems with get_user() and friends,
but simply because get_user() is an excellent source of a pointer
that is obviously controlled from a potentially attacking user
space. So it's a prime candidate for then finding _subsequent_
accesses that can then be used to perturb the cache.
Unlike the __get_user() case get_user() includes the address limit check
near the pointer de-reference. With that locality the speculation can be
mitigated with pointer narrowing rather than a barrier, i.e.
array_index_nospec(). Where the narrowing is performed by:
cmp %limit, %ptr
sbb %mask, %mask
and %mask, %ptr
With respect to speculation the value of %ptr is either less than %limit
or NULL.
Co-developed-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc: alan@...ux.intel.com
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/151727417469.33451.11804043010080838495.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
arch/x86/lib/getuser.S | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
--- a/arch/x86/lib/getuser.S
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/getuser.S
@@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_1)
mov PER_CPU_VAR(current_task), %_ASM_DX
cmp TASK_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX
jae bad_get_user
+ sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */
+ and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX
ASM_STAC
1: movzbl (%_ASM_AX),%edx
xor %eax,%eax
@@ -54,6 +56,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_2)
mov PER_CPU_VAR(current_task), %_ASM_DX
cmp TASK_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX
jae bad_get_user
+ sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */
+ and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX
ASM_STAC
2: movzwl -1(%_ASM_AX),%edx
xor %eax,%eax
@@ -68,6 +72,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_4)
mov PER_CPU_VAR(current_task), %_ASM_DX
cmp TASK_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX
jae bad_get_user
+ sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */
+ and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX
ASM_STAC
3: movl -3(%_ASM_AX),%edx
xor %eax,%eax
@@ -83,6 +89,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_8)
mov PER_CPU_VAR(current_task), %_ASM_DX
cmp TASK_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX
jae bad_get_user
+ sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */
+ and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX
ASM_STAC
4: movq -7(%_ASM_AX),%rdx
xor %eax,%eax
@@ -94,6 +102,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_8)
mov PER_CPU_VAR(current_task), %_ASM_DX
cmp TASK_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX
jae bad_get_user_8
+ sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */
+ and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX
ASM_STAC
4: movl -7(%_ASM_AX),%edx
5: movl -3(%_ASM_AX),%ecx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
