Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Lutomirski <> | Date | Mon, 5 Feb 2018 17:31:39 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/entry: Clear extra registers beyond syscall arguments for 64bit kernels |
| |
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 04:37:26PM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: >> > >> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 5, 2018, at 3:42 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > * Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> + /* >> >> >> + * Sanitize extra registers of values that a speculation attack >> >> >> + * might want to exploit. In the CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y case, >> >> >> + * the expectation is that %ebp will be clobbered before it >> >> >> + * could be used. >> >> >> + */ >> >> >> + .macro CLEAR_EXTRA_REGS_NOSPEC >> >> >> + xorq %r15, %r15 >> >> >> + xorq %r14, %r14 >> >> >> + xorq %r13, %r13 >> >> >> + xorq %r12, %r12 >> >> >> + xorl %ebx, %ebx >> >> >> +#ifndef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER >> >> >> + xorl %ebp, %ebp >> >> >> +#endif >> >> >> + .endm >> >> > >> >> > Yeah, so this series look pretty good to me, but there's one small detail: I think >> >> > RBP should be cleared unconditionally here, even in the CONFIG_FRAME_POINTERS=y >> >> > case, because: >> >> >> >> ENCODE_FRAME_POINTER should take care of rbp, though. >> > >> > AFAICS there's various entry paths where it's not used I think: for example the >> > compat system calls in entry_64_compat.S don't seem to encode RBP in such a >> > fashion (unless I missed some macro side effect). >> >> Then that's a separate bug that should be fixed. Josh? > > We don't encode the frame pointer on syscalls, because "fast path" > (though that's obviously no longer a consideration).
Should we start encoding the frame pointer?
--Andy
| |