Re: [v2 5/7] x86: Add emulation code for UMIP instructions

Andy Lutomirski
2016-12-28T00:48:33Z

On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Ricardo Neri
<ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-12-23 at 18:11 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Ricardo Neri
>> <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> > The feature User-Mode Instruction Prevention present in recent Intel
>> > processor prevents a group of instructions from being executed with
>> > CPL > 0. Otherwise, a general protection fault is issued.
>> >
>> > Rather than relaying this fault to the user space (in the form of a SIGSEGV
>> > signal), the instructions protected by UMIP can be emulated to provide
>> > dummy results. This allows to conserve the current kernel behavior and not
>> > reveal the system resources that UMIP intends to protect (the global
>> > descriptor and interrupt descriptor tables, the segment selectors of the
>> > local descriptor table and the task state and the machine status word).
>> >
>> > This emulation is needed because certain applications (e.g., WineHQ) rely
>> > on this subset of instructions to function.
>> >
>> > The instructions protected by UMIP can be split in two groups. Those who
>> > return a kernel memory address (sgdt and sidt) and those who return a
>> > value (sldt, str and smsw).
>> >
>> > For the instructions that return a kernel memory address, the result is
>> > emulated as the location of a dummy variable in the kernel memory space.
>> > This is needed as applications such as WineHQ rely on the result being
>> > located in the kernel memory space function. The limit for the GDT and the
>> > IDT are set to zero.
>>
>> Nak. This is a trivial KASLR bypass. Just give them hardcoded
>> values. For x86_64, I would suggest 0xfffffffffffe0000 and
>> 0xffffffffffff0000.
>
> I see. I assume you are suggesting these values for x86_64 because they
> lie in an unused hole. That makes sense to me.
>
> For the case of x86_32, I have trouble finding a suitable place as there
> are not many available holes. It could be put before VMALLOC_START or
> after VMALLOC_END but this would reveal the position of the vmalloc
> area. Although, to my knowledge, randomized memory is not available for
> x86_32. Without randomization, does it hurt to make sidt/sgdt return the
> address of a kernel static variable?

I would just use the same addresses, truncated. There's no reason
that the address needs to be truly not present -- it just needs to be
inaccessible to user code. Anything near the top of the address space
should work.

>
>>
>> >
>> > The instructions sldt and str return a segment selector relative to the
>> > base address of the global descriptor table. Since the actual address of
>> > such table is not revealed, it makes sense to emulate the result as zero.
>>
>> Hmm, now I wonder if anything uses SLDT to see if there is an LDT. If
>> so, we could emulate it better, but I doubt this matters.
>
> So you are saying that the emulated sldt should return a different value
> based on the presence/absence of a LDT? This could reveal this very
> fact.

User code knows whether the LDT exists because an LDT only exists if
the program called modify_ldt(). But I doubt this matters in
practice.

>> > +static int __emulate_umip_insn(struct insn *insn, enum umip_insn umip_inst,
>> > + unsigned char *data, int *data_size)
>> > +{
>> > + unsigned long const *dummy_base_addr;
>> > + unsigned short dummy_limit = 0;
>> > + unsigned short dummy_value = 0;
>> > +
>> > + switch (umip_inst) {
>> > + /*
>> > + * These two instructions return the base address and limit of the
>> > + * global and interrupt descriptor table. The base address can be
>> > + * 32-bit or 64-bit. Limit is always 16-bit.
>> > + */
>> > + case UMIP_SGDT:
>> > + case UMIP_SIDT:
>> > + if (umip_inst == UMIP_SGDT)
>> > + dummy_base_addr = &umip_dummy_gdt_base;
>> > + else
>> > + dummy_base_addr = &umip_dummy_idt_base;
>> > + if (X86_MODRM_MOD(insn->modrm.value) == 3) {
>> > + WARN_ONCE(1, "SGDT cannot take register as argument!\n");
>>
>> No warnings please.
>
> I'll. Remove it.

Thanks. In general, WARN_ONCE, etc are supposed to indicate kernel
bugs, not user bugs.

>> > + int not_copied, nr_copied, reg_offset, dummy_data_size;
>> > + void __user *uaddr;
>> > + unsigned long *reg_addr;
>> > + enum umip_insn umip_inst;
>> > +
>> > + not_copied = copy_from_user(buf, (void __user *)regs->ip, sizeof(buf));
>>
>> This is slightly wrong due to PKRU. I doubt we care.
>
> I see. If I am not mistaken, if the memory is protected by a protection
> key this would cause a page fault. I'll make a note of it.

Exactly. This is correct behavior unless the key happens to be set up
so it can be executed but not read, in which case emulation will fail.

>>
>> > + nr_copied = sizeof(buf) - not_copied;
>> > + /*
>> > + * The decoder _should_ fail nicely if we pass it a short buffer.
>> > + * But, let's not depend on that implementation detail. If we
>> > + * did not get anything, just error out now.
>> > + */
>> > + if (!nr_copied)
>> > + return -EFAULT;
>>
>> If the caller cares about EINVAL vs EFAULT, it cares because it is
>> considering changing the signal to a fake page fault. If so, then
>> this should be EINVAL -- failure to read the text should just prevent
>> emulation.
>
> I see. The caller in this case do_general_protection, which will issue a
> SIGSEGV to the user space anyways. I don't think it cares about the
> EINVAL vs EFAULT. It does care about whether the emulation was
> successful.

Maybe just make it return bool then? But fixing up the return codes
would be fine, too. I just think that, if it returns int, the value
should be meaningful.

>> > + if (nr_copied > 0)
>> > + return -EFAULT;
>>
>> This should be the only EFAULT case.
> Should this be EFAULT event if the caller cares only about successful
> (return 0) vs failed (return non-0) emulation?

In theory this particular error would be a page fault not a general
protection fault (in the UMIP off case). If you were emulating it
extra carefully, you could change the signal accordingly. But, as I
said, I really doubt this matters.