From: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/uprobes: Fix not using prefixes.nbytes for loop over prefixes.bytes
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:49:46 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e7148653-0156-b895-714c-0d4cd580a2a8@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201203181712.GN3059@zn.tnic>
On 12/3/20 12:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:10:10PM -0600, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> Since that struct is used in multiple places, I think basing it on the array
>> size is the best way to go. The main point of the check is just to be sure
>> you don't read outside of the array.
>
> Well, what happens if someone increases the array size of:
>
> struct insn_field {
> union {
> insn_byte_t bytes[4];
> ^^^^
>
> ?
I think we need to keep the parsing of the instruction separate from
accessing the prefixes after (successfully) parsing it. This fix is merely
making sure that we don't read outside the bounds of the array that
currently holds the legacy prefixes.
>
> That's why a separate array only for legacy prefixes would be better
> in the long run. The array size check is good as a short-term fix for
> stable.
>
> I'd say.
According to Volume 3 of the AMD APM (Figure 1-2 on page 5), there could
be as many as 5 legacy prefixes and it says that more than one prefix from
each group is undefined behavior. The instruction parsing code doesn't
seem to take into account the different prefix groups. So I agree with you
that short term the array size check works, and long term, the legacy
prefix support probably needs a closer look.
Thanks,
Tom
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-03 18:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-03 4:50 [PATCH v2 0/3] x86/insn: Fix not using prefixes.nbytes for loop over prefixes.bytes Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-03 4:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/uprobes: " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-03 12:37 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-03 12:41 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-03 12:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-03 16:45 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-12-03 16:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-03 17:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-03 18:10 ` Tom Lendacky
2020-12-03 18:17 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-03 18:49 ` Tom Lendacky [this message]
2020-12-04 0:56 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-04 3:55 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-04 11:06 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-04 11:28 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-04 0:16 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-04 0:18 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-04 15:04 ` [tip: x86/urgent] x86/uprobes: Do not use prefixes.nbytes when looping " tip-bot2 for Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-05 0:12 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-05 10:17 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-06 3:53 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-06 9:02 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-09 18:01 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2020-12-10 10:36 ` Borislav Petkov
2020-12-09 18:05 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2020-12-06 9:09 ` tip-bot2 for Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-03 4:50 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/insn-eval: Fix not using prefixes.nbytes for loop " Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-04 15:04 ` [tip: x86/urgent] x86/insn-eval: Use new for_each_insn_prefix() macro to loop over prefixes bytes tip-bot2 for Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-06 9:09 ` tip-bot2 for Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-03 4:51 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/sev-es: Fix not using prefixes.nbytes for loop over prefixes.bytes Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-04 15:04 ` [tip: x86/urgent] x86/sev-es: Use new for_each_insn_prefix() macro to loop over prefixes bytes tip-bot2 for Masami Hiramatsu
2020-12-06 9:09 ` tip-bot2 for Masami Hiramatsu
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=e7148653-0156-b895-714c-0d4cd580a2a8@amd.com \
--to=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=gustavoars@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=jroedel@suse.de \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.