On 24/07/2015 19:20, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Andy, section 5.8 of the SDM makes me think we could possibly abuse SYSRET
> > to emulate IRET, and then possibly simplify the flags processing. It says
> > that it takes the CPL3 code segment but nowhere it says that the target is
> > validated for effectively being userland, and further it suggests that it
> > doesn't validate anything :
> >
> > "It is the responsibility of the OS to ensure the descriptors in
> > the GDT/LDT correspond to the selectors loaded by SYSCALL/SYSRET
> > (consistent with the base, limit, and attribute values forced by
> > the instructions)."
> You are an evil bastard. I seriously doubt that this will work.
> SYSRET goes to CPL3 no matter what. Also, I don't think you want to
> start poking at MSRs to return.
On Intel the bottom two bits of the selector are forced to 11. The
pseudocode of SYSRET in the SDM has an explicit
CS.Selector ← (IA32_STAR[63:48]+ either 0 or 16) OR 3;
...
SS.Selector ← (IA32_STAR[63:48]+8) OR 3;
On AMD it's even worse, because you get a weird state with
CS.DPL=CS.RPL=SS.DPL=SS.RPL=0 but still the CPL is 3. This is seriously
messed up because the CPL is always SS.DPL except in this case. AMD
even had to add a separate field for the CPL to their VM control block,
just to account for this case. Intel more sanely uses SS.DPL.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
