xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>, "Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 7/7] x86emul: support SYSRET
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 10:00:32 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <9af3c1bb-5b8f-4ff5-c9ce-2f34af652814@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78b62646-6fd4-e5b3-bc09-783bb017eaaa@suse.com>

On 24/03/2020 16:29, Jan Beulich wrote:
> This is to augment SYSCALL, which has been supported for quite some
> time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

I've compared this to the in-progress version I have in my XSA-204
follow-on series.  I'm afraid the behaviour has far more vendor specific
quirks than this.

>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_emulate/x86_emulate.c
> @@ -5975,6 +5975,60 @@ x86_emulate(
>              goto done;
>          break;
>  
> +    case X86EMUL_OPC(0x0f, 0x07): /* sysret */
> +        vcpu_must_have(syscall);
> +        /* Inject #UD if syscall/sysret are disabled. */
> +        fail_if(!ops->read_msr);
> +        if ( (rc = ops->read_msr(MSR_EFER, &msr_val, ctxt)) != X86EMUL_OKAY )
> +            goto done;
> +        generate_exception_if((msr_val & EFER_SCE) == 0, EXC_UD);

(as with the SYSCALL side), no need for the vcpu_must_have(syscall) as
well as this check.

> +        generate_exception_if(!amd_like(ctxt) && !mode_64bit(), EXC_UD);
> +        generate_exception_if(!mode_ring0(), EXC_GP, 0);
> +        generate_exception_if(!in_protmode(ctxt, ops), EXC_GP, 0);
> +

The Intel SYSRET vulnerability checks regs->rcx for canonicity here, and
raises #GP here.

I see you've got it below, but this is where the Intel pseudocode puts
it, before MSR_STAR gets read, and logically it should be grouped with
the other excpetions.

> +        if ( (rc = ops->read_msr(MSR_STAR, &msr_val, ctxt)) != X86EMUL_OKAY )
> +            goto done;
> +        sreg.sel = ((msr_val >> 48) + 8) | 3; /* SELECTOR_RPL_MASK */

This would be the logical behaviour...

AMD CPUs |3 into %cs.sel, but don't make an equivalent adjustment for
%ss.sel, and simply take MSR_START.SYSRET_CS + 8.

If you aren't careful with MSR_STAR, SYSRET will return to userspace
with mismatching RPL/DPL and userspace can really find itself with an
%ss with an RPL of 0.  (Of course, when you take an interrupt and
attempt to IRET back to this context, things fall apart).

I discovered this entirely by accident in XTF, but it is confirmed by
careful reading of the AMD SYSRET pseudocode.

> +        cs.sel = op_bytes == 8 ? sreg.sel + 8 : sreg.sel - 8;
> +
> +        cs.base = sreg.base = 0; /* flat segment */
> +        cs.limit = sreg.limit = ~0u; /* 4GB limit */
> +        cs.attr = 0xcfb; /* G+DB+P+DPL3+S+Code */
> +        sreg.attr = 0xcf3; /* G+DB+P+DPL3+S+Data */

Again, that would be the logical behaviour...

AMD CPU's don't update anything but %ss.sel, and even comment the fact
in pseudocode now.

This was discovered by Andy Luto, where he found that taking an
interrupt (unconditionally sets %ss to NUL), and opportunistic sysret
back to 32bit userspace lets userspace see a sane %ss value, but with
the attrs still empty, and the stack unusable.

> +
> +#ifdef __x86_64__
> +        if ( mode_64bit() )
> +        {
> +            if ( op_bytes == 8 )
> +            {
> +                cs.attr = 0xafb; /* L+DB+P+DPL3+S+Code */
> +                generate_exception_if(!is_canonical_address(_regs.rcx) &&
> +                                      !amd_like(ctxt), EXC_GP, 0);

Wherever this ends up living, I think it needs calling out with a
comment /* CVE-xxx, Intel privilege escalation hole */, as it is a very
subtle piece of vendor specific behaviour.

Do we have a Centaur/other CPU to try with?  I'd err on the side of
going with == Intel rather than !AMD to avoid introducing known
vulnerabilities into models which stand half a chance of not being affected.

> +                _regs.rip = _regs.rcx;
> +            }
> +            else
> +                _regs.rip = _regs.ecx;
> +
> +            _regs.eflags = _regs.r11 & ~(X86_EFLAGS_RF | X86_EFLAGS_VM);
> +        }
> +        else
> +#endif
> +        {
> +            _regs.r(ip) = _regs.ecx;
> +            _regs.eflags |= X86_EFLAGS_IF;
> +        }
> +
> +        fail_if(!ops->write_segment);
> +        if ( (rc = ops->write_segment(x86_seg_cs, &cs, ctxt)) != X86EMUL_OKAY ||
> +             (!amd_like(ctxt) &&
> +              (rc = ops->write_segment(x86_seg_ss, &sreg,
> +                                       ctxt)) != X86EMUL_OKAY) )

Oh - here is the AMD behaviour with %ss, but its not quite correct.

AFAICT, the correct behaviour is to read the old %ss on AMD-like, set
flat attributes on Intel, and write back normally, because %ss.sel does
get updated.

~Andrew

> +            goto done;
> +
> +        singlestep = _regs.eflags & X86_EFLAGS_TF;
> +        break;
> +
>      case X86EMUL_OPC(0x0f, 0x08): /* invd */
>      case X86EMUL_OPC(0x0f, 0x09): /* wbinvd / wbnoinvd */
>          generate_exception_if(!mode_ring0(), EXC_GP, 0);
>



  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-25 10:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-24 16:18 [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/7] x86emul: (mainly) vendor specific behavior adjustments Jan Beulich
2020-03-24 16:26 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/7] x86emul: add wrappers to check for AMD-like behavior Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 13:26   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-24 16:26 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/7] x86emul: vendor specific near RET behavior in 64-bit mode Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 13:36   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-24 16:27 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/7] x86emul: vendor specific direct branch " Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 14:10   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-24 16:27 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/7] x86emul: vendor specific near indirect " Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 14:11   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-24 16:28 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 5/7] x86emul: vendor specific SYSENTER/SYSEXIT behavior in long mode Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 14:15   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-24 16:28 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 6/7] x86emul: vendor specific SYSCALL behavior Jan Beulich
2020-03-25  9:44   ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-24 16:29 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH 7/7] x86emul: support SYSRET Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 10:00   ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2020-03-25 10:19     ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 10:47       ` Andrew Cooper
2020-03-25 11:55     ` Jan Beulich
2020-03-25 12:25       ` Andrew Cooper

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=9af3c1bb-5b8f-4ff5-c9ce-2f34af652814@citrix.com \
    --to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=wl@xen.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).