From: Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com
(cherry picked from commit c7f631cb07e7da06ac1d231ca178452339e32a94)
Quoting Linus:
I do think that it would be a good idea to very expressly document the fact that it's not that the user access itself is unsafe. I do agree that things like "get_user()" want to be protected, but not because of any direct bugs or problems with get_user() and friends, but simply because get_user() is an excellent source of a pointer that is obviously controlled from a potentially attacking user space. So it's a prime candidate for then finding _subsequent_ accesses that can then be used to perturb the cache.
Unlike the __get_user() case get_user() includes the address limit check near the pointer de-reference. With that locality the speculation can be mitigated with pointer narrowing rather than a barrier, i.e. array_index_nospec(). Where the narrowing is performed by:
cmp %limit, %ptr sbb %mask, %mask and %mask, %ptr
With respect to speculation the value of %ptr is either less than %limit or NULL.
Co-developed-by: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Dan Williams dan.j.williams@intel.com Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Cc: Kees Cook keescook@chromium.org Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: Al Viro viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk Cc: Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: alan@linux.intel.com Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/151727417469.33451.11804043010080838495.stgit@dwil... Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse dwmw@amazon.co.uk Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org [jwang: port to 4.4] Signed-off-by: Jack Wang jinpu.wang@profitbricks.com --- arch/x86/lib/getuser.S | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/getuser.S b/arch/x86/lib/getuser.S index 46668cd..490b2ee 100644 --- a/arch/x86/lib/getuser.S +++ b/arch/x86/lib/getuser.S @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_1) GET_THREAD_INFO(%_ASM_DX) cmp TI_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX jae bad_get_user + sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */ + and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX ASM_STAC 1: movzbl (%_ASM_AX),%edx xor %eax,%eax @@ -51,6 +53,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_2) GET_THREAD_INFO(%_ASM_DX) cmp TI_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX jae bad_get_user + sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */ + and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX ASM_STAC 2: movzwl -1(%_ASM_AX),%edx xor %eax,%eax @@ -64,6 +68,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_4) GET_THREAD_INFO(%_ASM_DX) cmp TI_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX jae bad_get_user + sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */ + and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX ASM_STAC 3: movl -3(%_ASM_AX),%edx xor %eax,%eax @@ -78,6 +84,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_8) GET_THREAD_INFO(%_ASM_DX) cmp TI_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX jae bad_get_user + sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */ + and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX ASM_STAC 4: movq -7(%_ASM_AX),%rdx xor %eax,%eax @@ -89,6 +97,8 @@ ENTRY(__get_user_8) GET_THREAD_INFO(%_ASM_DX) cmp TI_addr_limit(%_ASM_DX),%_ASM_AX jae bad_get_user_8 + sbb %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_DX /* array_index_mask_nospec() */ + and %_ASM_DX, %_ASM_AX ASM_STAC 4: movl -7(%_ASM_AX),%edx 5: movl -3(%_ASM_AX),%ecx