[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] x86/traps: 'Fix' safety of read_registers() in #DF path
On 13/10/2020 16:51, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 12.10.2020 15:49, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> All interrupts and exceptions pass a struct cpu_user_regs up into C. This >> contains the legacy vm86 fields from 32bit days, which are beyond the >> hardware-pushed frame. >> >> Accessing these fields is generally illegal, as they are logically out of >> bounds for anything other than an interrupt/exception hitting ring1/3 code. >> >> Unfortunately, the #DF handler uses these fields as part of preparing the >> state dump, and being IST, accesses the adjacent stack frame. >> >> This has been broken forever, but c/s 6001660473 "x86/shstk: Rework the stack >> layout to support shadow stacks" repositioned the #DF stack to be adjacent to >> the guard page, which turns this OoB write into a fatal pagefault: >> >> (XEN) *** DOUBLE FAULT *** >> (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.15-unstable x86_64 debug=y Tainted: C ]---- >> (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.15-unstable x86_64 debug=y Tainted: C ]---- >> (XEN) CPU: 4 >> (XEN) RIP: e008:[<ffff82d04031fd4f>] traps.c#read_registers+0x29/0xc1 >> (XEN) RFLAGS: 0000000000050086 CONTEXT: hypervisor (d1v0) >> ... >> (XEN) Xen call trace: >> (XEN) [<ffff82d04031fd4f>] R traps.c#read_registers+0x29/0xc1 >> (XEN) [<ffff82d0403207b3>] F do_double_fault+0x3d/0x7e >> (XEN) [<ffff82d04039acd7>] F double_fault+0x107/0x110 >> (XEN) >> (XEN) Pagetable walk from ffff830236f6d008: >> (XEN) L4[0x106] = 80000000bfa9b063 ffffffffffffffff >> (XEN) L3[0x008] = 0000000236ffd063 ffffffffffffffff >> (XEN) L2[0x1b7] = 0000000236ffc063 ffffffffffffffff >> (XEN) L1[0x16d] = 8000000236f6d161 ffffffffffffffff >> (XEN) >> (XEN) **************************************** >> (XEN) Panic on CPU 4: >> (XEN) FATAL PAGE FAULT >> (XEN) [error_code=0003] >> (XEN) Faulting linear address: ffff830236f6d008 >> (XEN) **************************************** >> (XEN) >> >> and rendering the main #DF analysis broken. >> >> The proper fix is to delete cpu_user_regs.es and later, so no >> interrupt/exception path can access OoB, but this needs disentangling from >> the >> PV ABI first. >> >> Not-really-fixes: 6001660473 ("x86/shstk: Rework the stack layout to support >> shadow stacks") >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> > > Is it perhaps worth also saying explicitly that the other IST > stacks don't suffer the same problem because show_registers() > makes an local copy of the passed in struct? (Doing so also > for #DF would apparently be an alternative solution.) They're not safe. They merely don't explode. https://lore.kernel.org/xen-devel/1532546157-5974-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx/ was "fixed" by CET-SS turning the guard page from not present to read-only, but the same CET-SS series swapped #DB for #DF when it comes to the single OoB write problem case. ~Andrew
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |