[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/entry/64: Remove %ebx handling from error_entry/exit
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:05:09AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> error_entry and error_exit communicate the user vs kernel status of
> the frame using %ebx. This is unnecessary -- the information is in
> regs->cs. Just use regs->cs.
> This makes error_entry simpler and makes error_exit more robust.
> It also fixes a nasty bug. Before all the Spectre nonsense, The
> xen_failsafe_callback entry point returned like this:
> jmp error_exit
> And it did not go through error_entry. This was bogus: RBX
> contained garbage, and error_exit expected a flag in RBX.
> Fortunately, it generally contained *nonzero* garbage, so the
> correct code path was used. As part of the Spectre fixes, code was
> added to clear RBX to mitigate certain speculation attacks. Now,
> depending on kernel configuration, RBX got zeroed and, when running
> some Wine workloads, the kernel crashes. This was introduced by:
> commit 3ac6d8c787b8 ("x86/entry/64: Clear registers for
> exceptions/interrupts, to reduce speculation attack surface")
> With this patch applied, RBX is no longer needed as a flag, and the
> problem goes away.
> I suspect that malicious userspace could use this bug to crash the
> kernel even without the offending patch applied, though.
> [Historical note: I wrote this patch as a cleanup before I was aware
> of the bug it fixed.]
> [Note to stable maintainers: this should probably get applied to all
> kernels. If you're nervous about that, a more conservative fix to
> add xorl %ebx,%ebx; incl %ebx before the jump to error_exit should
> also fix the problem.]
> Cc: Brian Gerst <>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <>
> Cc: Dominik Brodowski <>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <>
> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <>
> Cc: Juergen Gross <>
> Cc:
> Cc:
> Cc:
> Fixes: 3ac6d8c787b8 ("x86/entry/64: Clear registers for exceptions/interrupts, to reduce speculation attack surface")
> Reported-and-tested-by: "M. Vefa Bicakci" <>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <>
> ---
> I could also submit the conservative fix tagged for -stable and respin
> this on top of it. Ingo, Greg, what do you prefer?

I don't care, this patch looks good to me to take as-is for the stable
trees. If you trust it in Linus's tree, it should be fine for others :)


greg k-h

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-23 09:26    [W:0.073 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site