[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4i5oORdk-Fzypxw_+gCLUa8f=w1e_n0=47P7uHR-jT6GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 12:37:54 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Luis Henriques <lhenriques@...e.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] x86: narrow out of bounds syscalls to sys_read
under speculation
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> Just to clarify, when you say "this patch" you mean:
>>
>> 2fbd7af5af86 x86/syscall: Sanitize syscall table de-references
>> under speculation
>>
>> ...not this early MASK_NOSPEC version of the patch, right?
>
> I suspect not. If that patch is broken, the system wouldn't even boot.
>
> That said, looking at 2fbd7af5af86, I do note that the code generation
> is horribly stupid.
>
> It's due to two different issues:
>
> (a) the x86 asm constraints for that inline asm is nasty, and
> requires a register for 'size', even though an immediate works just
> fine.
>
> (b) the "cmp" is inside the asm, so gcc can't combine it with the
> *other* cmp in the C code.
>
> Fixing (a) is easy:
>
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h
> @@ -43 +43 @@ static inline unsigned long
> array_index_mask_nospec(unsigned long index,
> - :"r"(size),"r" (index)
> + :"ir"(size),"r" (index)
>
> but fixing (b) looks fundamentally hard. Gcc generates (for do_syscall()):
>
> cmpq $332, %rbp #, nr
> ja .L295 #,
> cmp $333,%rbp
> sbb %rax,%rax; #, nr, mask
>
> note how it completely pointlessly does the comparison twice, even
> though it could have just done
>
> cmp $333,%rbp
> jae .L295 #,
> sbb %rax,%rax; #, nr, mask
>
> Ho humm. Sad.
Are there any compilers that would miscompile:
mask = 0 - (index < size);
That might be a way to improve the assembly.
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.
