[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ46whob0-DE1_dydRtoNAN0Lw7EUsnNvNyQzwt_g9iEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:11:08 -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 Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 5:06 AM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:20:58PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK.
>
> > 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).
>
> I think there are too many uses of WARN() for anyone sane to enable
> that in production, whereas it'd have made sense to enable it for the
> few security-related uses.
Yeah, that's been my thinking too. I've been thinking about this for a
while trying to decide if we need something between WARN and BUG, but
I can't make up my mind. ;)
> > > 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?
>
> Good point. I don't know. If CR4 is per hardware thread, then the race
> would require an interrupt and would be much harder to win.
>
> > Couldn't we turn off interrupts to stop the race?
>
> This won't help. An attack would skip the code that disables interrupts
> and land right on the MOV instruction.
Oh duh, yeah. ;)
I think v2 is good enough given the constraints we've got.
Thanks for looking at it!
--
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.
