Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-Id: <5AEABBBF02000078001C05B0@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date:   Thu, 03 May 2018 01:35:27 -0600
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To:     "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc:     "xen-devel" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/4] xen/PVH: Set up GS segment for
 stack canary
References: <20180430162339.17143-1-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
 <20180430162339.17143-4-boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
 <5AE973CD02000078001C008E@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
 <615b0e30-c360-3ad4-f1b3-0e907d790643@oracle.com>
 <5AE9D2DD02000078001C02F0@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
 <6729d0ff-31ff-779d-6d6f-511f9ee29e50@oracle.com>
 <5AE9DC1D02000078001C0370@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
 <9ed1210b-47ce-7e03-cc5d-2866bfc7ad03@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <9ed1210b-47ce-7e03-cc5d-2866bfc7ad03@oracle.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> On 02.05.18 at 19:29, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 11:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 02.05.18 at 17:22, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2018 11:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02.05.18 at 17:00, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 05/02/2018 04:16 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30.04.18 at 18:23, <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/xen-pvh.S
>>>>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@
>>>>>>>   * charge of setting up it's own stack, GDT and IDT.
>>>>>>>   */
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> +#define PVH_GDT_ENTRY_CANARY    4
>>>>>>> +#define PVH_CANARY_SEL          (PVH_GDT_ENTRY_CANARY * 8)
>>>>>> I can only advise against doing it this way: There's no safeguard against
>>>>>> someone changing asm/segment.h without changing this value (in fact
>>>>>> this applies to all of the GDT selectors populated in this file). At the 
>>>>> very
>>>>>> least tie this to GDT_ENTRY_BOOT_TSS / __BOOT_TSS?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -64,6 +67,9 @@ ENTRY(pvh_start_xen)
>>>>>>>  	mov %eax,%es
>>>>>>>  	mov %eax,%ss
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> +	mov $(PVH_CANARY_SEL),%eax
>>>>>>> +	mov %eax,%gs
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>  	/* Stash hvm_start_info. */
>>>>>>>  	mov $_pa(pvh_start_info), %edi
>>>>>>>  	mov %ebx, %esi
>>>>>>> @@ -150,6 +156,7 @@ gdt_start:
>>>>>>>  	.quad 0x00cf9a000000ffff            /* __BOOT_CS */
>>>>>>>  #endif
>>>>>>>  	.quad 0x00cf92000000ffff            /* __BOOT_DS */
>>>>>>> +	.quad 0x0040900000000018            /* PVH_CANARY_SEL */
>>>>>> Without any further code before loading the selector, this points at
>>>>>> physical address 0. Don't you need to add in the base address of
>>>>>> the per-CPU stack_canary?
>>>>> This GDT is gone soon after we jump into generic x86 startup code.That
>>>>> code will load its own GDT (and then set up per-cpu segments and all that).
>>>> All understood, but why would you set up the per-CPU segment here if
>>>> what you load into the segment register is not usable for the intended
>>>> purpose (until that other code sets up things and reloads the segment
>>>> registers)?
>>> The intended purpose here is to allow stack protector access not to
>>> fail. At this point it doesn't really matter that GS is later used for
>>> per-cpu segment, this code (and this GDT) will not be used when other
>>> CPUs come up.
>> But the place the canary would live this way is completely wrong. 
> 
> 
> Would creating a canary variable and using it as a base address be better?

Of course, because then at least you properly control where an eventual
access would go, instead of touching some unrelated memory location.

Jan