|
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLB=so4r169pq1KF3Kyfh2Kw_t6ZXGavpzVO2sg3=D1tw@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:20:58 -0800 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/asm: Pin sensitive CR4 bits On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:49 AM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:09:34AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > + if (WARN_ONCE((val & cr4_pin) != cr4_pin, "cr4 bypass attempt?!\n")) > > + goto again; > > I think "goto again" is too mild a response given that it occurs after a > successful write of a non-pinned value to CR4. I think it'd allow some > exploits to eventually win the race: make their desired use of whatever > functionality SMEP, etc. would have prevented - which may be just a few > instructions they need to run - before the CR4 value is reverted after > "goto again". I think it's one of those cases where a kernel panic > would be more appropriate. It will not land upstream with a BUG() or panic(). Linus has explicitly stated that none of this work can do that until it has "baked" in the kernel for a couple years. In his defense, anyone sufficiently paranoid can already raise the priority of a WARN() into a panic via sysctl kernel.panic_on_warn (and kernel.panic_on_oops). > Also, WARN_ONCE possibly introduces a delay sufficient to realistically > win this race on the first try. If we choose to warn, we should do it > after having reverted the CR4 value, not before. Isn't cr4 CPU-local though? Couldn't we turn off interrupts to stop the race? -- Kees Cook
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.