[resend as plaintext, apparently mobile gmail will send HTML mails]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 01:13:03PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
>> Obvious candidates are: meta, numgen, limit, objref, quota, reject.
>> We should probably also consider removing
>> build both too (at least rbtree since that offers interval).
>> For the indirect call issue we can use direct calls from eval loop for
>> some of the more frequently used ones, similar to what we do already
>> for nft_cmp_fast_expr.
> nft_cmp_fast_expr and other expressions mentioned above made me thinking...
> do we have the same issue with nft interpreter as we had with bpf one?
> bpf interpreter was used as part of spectre2 attack to leak
> information via cache side channel and let VM read hypervisor memory.
> Due to that issue we removed bpf interpreter from the kernel code.
> That's what CONFIG_BPF_JIT_ALWAYS_ON for...
> but we still have nft interpreter in the kernel that can also
> execute arbitrary nft expressions.
> Jann's exploit used the following bpf instructions:
> and a gadget to jump into __bpf_prog_run with insn pointing
> to memory controlled by the guest while accessible
> (at different virt address) by the hypervisor.
> It seems possible to construct similar sequence of instructions
> out of nft expressions and use gadget that jumps into nft_do_chain().
> Obviously such exploit is harder to do than bpf based one.
> Do we need to do anything about it ?
> May be it's easier to find gadgets in .text of vmlinux
> instead of messing with interpreters?
> Jann,
> can you comment on removing interpreters in general?
> Do we need to worry about having bpf and/or nft interpreter
> in the kernel?

I think that for Spectre V2, the presence of interpreters isn't a big
problem. It simplifies writing attacks a bit, but I don't expect it to
be necessary if an attacker invests some time into finding useful

Reply via email to