Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/entry: Clear extra registers beyond syscall arguments for 64bit kernels

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > * Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Feb 5, 2018, at 3:42 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > * Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> 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