kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH 4.4 178/193] x86/syscall: Sanitize syscall table de-references under speculation

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMGffEm3bRrshMftdpC4cTNppQuFUPyOniE3zZL7PJRinbVVfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 17:11:20 +0100
From: Jinpu Wang <jinpu.wang@...fitbricks.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, alan@...ux.intel.com, David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, 
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 178/193] x86/syscall: Sanitize syscall table
 de-references under speculation

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:
> On 02/23/2018, 07:26 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> 4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>>
>> ------------------
>>
>> From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>>
>> (cherry picked from commit 2fbd7af5af8665d18bcefae3e9700be07e22b681)
>>
>> The syscall table base is a user controlled function pointer in kernel
>> space. Use array_index_nospec() to prevent any out of bounds speculation.
>>
>> While retpoline prevents speculating into a userspace directed target it
>> does not stop the pointer de-reference, the concern is leaking memory
>> relative to the syscall table base, by observing instruction cache
>> behavior.
>>
>> Reported-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: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
>> Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
>> Cc: alan@...ux.intel.com
>> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/151727417984.33451.1216731042505722161.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com
>> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
>> [jwang: port to 4.4, no syscall_64]
>
> This is not complete IMO, the syscall is indeed there, only written in
> assembly in 4.4 yet.
>
> So this patch looks like it is missing these two hunks (from my
> SLE12-SP2 backport):
>
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>> @@ -184,6 +184,8 @@ entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath:
>>        cmpl    $__NR_syscall_max, %eax
>>  #endif
>>        ja      1f                              /* return -ENOSYS (already in pt_regs->ax) */
>> +      sbb     %rcx, %rcx                      /* array_index_mask_nospec() */
>> +      and     %rcx, %rax
>>        movq    %r10, %rcx
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE
>>        movq    sys_call_table(, %rax, 8), %rax
>> @@ -282,6 +284,8 @@ tracesys_phase2:
>>        cmpl    $__NR_syscall_max, %eax
>>  #endif
>>        ja      1f                              /* return -ENOSYS (already in pt_regs->ax) */
>> +      sbb     %rcx, %rcx                      /* array_index_mask_nospec() */
>> +      and     %rcx, %rax
>>        movq    %r10, %rcx                      /* fixup for C */
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE
>>        movq    sys_call_table(, %rax, 8), %rax
>
> Discovered by Jan Beulich.
>
> thanks,
> --
> js
> suse labs

Thanks Jiri, yes, indeed, could you send a formal patch of the fix?

Thanks!
Jack Wang

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.