kernel-hardening.lists.openwall.com archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>,
	David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Samuel Neves <samuel.c.p.neves@gmail.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH] x86/retpoline/entry: Disable the entire SYSCALL64 fast path with retpolines on
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:07:22 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180126180722.GA13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzr_tvdjsq1B+N1zrprNe-qfwo0At+r8uKiS=BGN_92vQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:40:23AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I gave the rearrangement like this a try yesterday and it's a bit of a
> > mess.  Part of the problem is that there are a bunch of pieces of code
> > that expect sys_xyz() to be actual callable functions.
> 
> That's not supposed to be a mess.
> 
> That's part of why we do that whole indirection through SYSC##xyz to
> sys##_xyz: the asm-callable ones will do the full casting of
> troublesome arguments (some architectures have C calling sequence
> rules that have security issues, so we need to make sure that the
> arguments actually follow the right rules and 'int' arguments are
> properly sign-extended etc).
> 
> So that whole indirection could be made to *also* create another
> version of the syscall that instead took the arguments from ptregs.
> 
> We already do exactly that for the tracing events: look how
> FTRACE_SYSCALLS ends up creating that extra metadata.
> 
> The ptreg version should be done the same way: don't make 'sys_xyz()'
> take a struct ptregs, instead make those SYSCALL_DEFINE*() macros
> create a _new_ function called 'ptregs_xyz()' and then that function
> does the argument unpacking.
> 
> Then the x86 system call table can just be switched over to call those
> ptreg versions instead.

Umm...  What about other architectures?  Or do you want SYSCALL_DEFINE...
to be per-arch?  I wonder how much would that "go through pt_regs" hurt
on something like sparc...

  reply	other threads:[~2018-01-26 18:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-22 18:04 [kernel-hardening] [PATCH] x86/retpoline/entry: Disable the entire SYSCALL64 fast path with retpolines on Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-22 18:55 ` [kernel-hardening] " Linus Torvalds
2018-01-23  8:01   ` Ingo Molnar
2018-01-23 18:36   ` Alan Cox
2018-01-25 18:48   ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-25 19:16     ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-25 20:04       ` Brian Gerst
2018-01-25 20:54         ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-25 21:02     ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-25 21:05       ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-01-25 21:06       ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-25 21:08         ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-25 21:20           ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-25 21:31             ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-25 21:39               ` Dan Williams
2018-01-25 21:53                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-25 21:53                 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-26 11:17               ` [kernel-hardening] " David Laight
2018-01-26 14:24                 ` [kernel-hardening] " Alan Cox
2018-01-26 15:57                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-26 17:40                     ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-26 18:07                       ` Al Viro [this message]
2018-01-26 18:13                         ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-26 18:23                           ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-26 18:54                             ` Linus Torvalds
2018-01-26 19:02                               ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-29 13:19                             ` Will Deacon
2018-01-29 15:23                               ` [kernel-hardening] " David Laight

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180126180722.GA13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
    --cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=samuel.c.p.neves@gmail.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).