CPUs: information leak using speculative execution
Project Member Reported by firstname.lastname@example.org, Jun 1 2017
== INTRODUCTION == This is a bug report about a CPU security issue that affects processors by Intel, AMD and (to some extent) ARM. I have written a PoC for this issue that, when executed in userspace on an Intel Xeon CPU E5-1650 v3 machine with a modern Linux kernel, can leak around 2000 bytes per second from Linux kernel memory after a ~4-second startup, in a 4GiB address space window, with the ability to read from random offsets in that window. The same thing also works on an AMD PRO A8-9600 R7 machine, although a bit less reliably and slower. On the Intel CPU, I also have preliminary results that suggest that it may be possible to leak host memory (which would include memory owned by other guests) from inside a KVM guest. The attack doesn't seem to work as well on ARM - perhaps because ARM CPUs don't perform as much speculative execution because of a different performance-energy-tradeoff or so? All PoCs are written against specific processors and will likely require at least some adjustments before they can run in other environments, e.g. because of hardcoded timing tresholds. **** Apparently our issue tracker can't handle overly long writeups, so I have attached the full writeup as a textfile instead. **** This bug is subject to a 90 day disclosure deadline. After 90 days elapse or a patch has been made broadly available, the bug report will become visible to the public.
Jun 2 2017,
Jun 22 2017,
On the following Intel CPUs (the only ones tested so far), we managed to leak information using another variant of this issue ("variant 3"). So far, we have not managed to leak information this way on AMD or ARM CPUs. - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 v3 @ 3.50GHz (in a workstation) - Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6600U CPU @ 2.60GHz (in a laptop) Apparently, on Intel CPUs, loads from kernel mappings in ring 3 during speculative execution have something like the following behavior: - If the address is not mapped (perhaps also under other conditions?), instructions that depend on the load are not executed. - If the address is mapped, but not sufficiently cached, the load loads zeroes. Instructions that depend on the load are executed. Perhaps Intel decided that in case of a sufficiently high-latency load, it makes sense to speculate ahead with a dummy value to get a chance to prefetch cachelines for dependent loads, or something like that? - If the address is sufficiently cached, the load loads the data stored at the given address, without respecting the privilege level. Instructions that depend on the load are executed. This is the vulnerable case. I have attached a PoC that works on both tested Intel systems, named intel_kernel_read_poc.tar. Usage: As root, determine where the core_pattern is in the kernel: ===== # grep core_pattern /proc/kallsyms ffffffff81e8aea0 D core_pattern ===== Then, as a normal user, unpack the PoC and use it to leak the core_pattern (and potentially other cached things around it) from kernel memory, using the pointer from the previous step: ===== $ cat /proc/sys/kernel/core_pattern /cores/%E.%p.%s.%t $ ./compile.sh && time ./poc_test ffffffff81e8aea0 4096 ffffffff81e8aea0 2f 63 6f 72 65 73 2f 25 45 2e 25 70 2e 25 73 2e |/cores/%E.%p.%s.| ffffffff81e8aeb0 25 74 00 61 70 70 6f 72 74 20 25 70 20 25 73 20 |%t.apport %p %s | ffffffff81e8aec0 25 63 20 25 50 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |%c %P...........| [ zeroes ] ffffffff81e8af20 c0 a4 e8 81 ff ff ff ff c0 af e8 81 ff ff ff ff |................| ffffffff81e8af30 20 8e f0 81 ff ff ff ff 75 d9 cd 81 ff ff ff ff | .......u.......| [ zeroes ] ffffffff81e8bb60 65 5b cf 81 ff ff ff ff 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |e[..............| ffffffff81e8bb70 00 00 00 00 6d 41 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 |....mA..........| [ zeroes ] real 0m13.726s user 0m9.820s sys 0m3.908s ===== As you can see, the core_pattern, part of the previous core_pattern (behind the first nullbyte) and a few kernel pointers were leaked. To confirm whether other leaked kernel data was leaked correctly, use gdb as root to read kernel memory: ===== # gdb /bin/sleep /proc/kcore [...] (gdb) x/4gx 0xffffffff81e8af20 0xffffffff81e8af20: 0xffffffff81e8a4c0 0xffffffff81e8afc0 0xffffffff81e8af30: 0xffffffff81f08e20 0xffffffff81cdd975 (gdb) x/4gx 0xffffffff81e8bb60 0xffffffff81e8bb60: 0xffffffff81cf5b65 0x0000000000000000 0xffffffff81e8bb70: 0x0000416d00000000 0x0000000000000000 ===== Note that the PoC will report uncached bytes as zeroes. To Intel: Please tell me if you have trouble reproducing this issue. Given how different my two test machines are, I would be surprised if this didn't just work out of the box on other CPUs from the same generation. This PoC doesn't have hardcoded timings or anything like that. We have not yet tested whether this still works after a TLB flush. Regarding possible mitigations: A short while ago, Daniel Gruss presented KAISER: https://gruss.cc/files/kaiser.pdf https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/4/220 (cached: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Vys_INYdkOMJ:https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/5/4/220+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ch ) https://github.com/IAIK/KAISER Basically, the issue that KAISER tries to mitigate is that on Intel CPUs, the timing of a pagefault reveals whether the address is unmapped or mapped as kernel-only (because for an unmapped address, a pagetable walk has to occur while for a mapped address, the TLB can be used). KAISER duplicates the top-level pagetables of all processes and switches them on kernel entry and exit. The kernel's top-level pagetable looks as before. In the top-level pagetable used while executing userspace code, most entries that are only used by the kernel are zeroed out, except for the kernel text and stack that are necessary to execute the syscall/exception entry code that has to switch back the pagetable. I suspect that this approach might also be usable for mitigating variant 3, but I don't know how much TLB flushing / data cache flushing would be necessary to make it work.
Aug 7 2017,
Dec 20 2017,
Adding the KVM PoC I sent to Intel on August 24.
Jan 9 2018,
Sign in to add a comment