Theo de Raadt Details Intel Core 2 Bugs

Eukariote writes "Recently, Intel patched bugs in its Core 2 processors. Details were scarce; soothing words were spoken to the effect that a BIOS update is all that is required. OpenBSD founder Theo de Raadt has now provided more details and analysis on outstanding, fixed, and non-fixable Core 2 bugs. Some choice quotes: 'Some of these bugs... will *ASSUREDLY* be exploitable from userland code... Some of these are things that cannot be fixed in running code, and some are things that every operating system will do until about mid-2008.'"

Comments

Re:Yay AMD

[BosstonesOwn]

I don't think that is a good thing either. It looks like AMD may be doing this as well.

(While here, I would like to say that AMD is becoming less helpful day
by day towards open source operating systems too, perhaps because
their serious errata lists are growing rapidly too).

Re:Good stuff.

[Lisandro]

Same here. The guy might seem like a bit of an asshole sometimes, but he surely knows what he's talking about. Some of the things he points out are plain unbelievable:

Basically the MMU simply does not operate as specified/implimented in previous generations of x86 hardware. It is not just buggy, but Intel has gone further and defined "new ways to handle page tables" (see page 58).

Some of these bugs are along the lines of "buffer overflow"; where a write-protect or non-execute bit for a page table entry is ignored. Others are floating point instruction non-coherencies, or memory corruptions -- outside of the range of permitted writing for the process -- running common instruction sequences.

It will be interesting to see what Intel has to say about this.

Linus doesn't think it's a big deal.

[davebert]

Link

Re:Summary sucks, someone please provide better on

[swillden]

Some of the bugs are so dangerous that it doesn't matter WHAT operating system you're running, code could be written that could attack the entire system. It would still be OS-specific code, but since the exploit is in the hardware, it's a LOT harder to prevent the attack, if it's even possible.

Here's a little more detail, based on my (very incomplete) understanding of the issues:

It appears that Intel has made changes to the way the memory management unit in the processor works, plus there are also some bugs that affect memory management. So what does that mean?

• Theo mentions changes in how TLB flushes must be handled. Translation Lookaside Buffers (TLBs) are tables where operating systems cache information used to quickly determine what physical memory page corresponds to a given virtual memory page. Each running process has it's own address space (meaning the data at address, say, 1000, is different for each process) and operating systems have to be able to quickly translate these virtual addresses to addresses within the physically-available RAM. The authoritative data on the mapping is in a set of data structures called the "page table", but the processors provide a mechanism for creating and managing TLBs which act as a high-performance cache of part of the page table data. Failing to properly flush the TLBs during a context switch (putting one process to sleep and activating another) might result in the new process' virtual memory mapping being done incorrectly. From a security perspective, this could give one process access to memory owned by another.
• Another issue mentioned is the possibility that No-Execute bits may be ignored. The OS can set the No-Execute (NX) bit on a page of memory that it knows to be pure data that should not be executed. The processor will refuse to execute code from any memory page with NX set. This makes most buffer overflow attacks impossible, because the normal buffer overflow attack involves getting a bit of malicious code shoved into a stack-based buffer as well as overflowing the buffer to overwrite a return address so that the CPU will jump to and execute the malicious code. Obviously, if the processor sometimes ignores NX bits, the buffer overflow attacks become possible again.
• Theo also mentions possibly-ignored Write-Protect (WP) bits. The OS can mark memory pages as read-only. This is used for all sorts of things related to security. One of the biggest is preventing processes from writing to the memory in which shared libraries are loaded. If my process could overwrite, say, the C library code implementing "printf", other processes that call this function would execute my code. Some of them will be running as root, so I can execute code with root permissions. Modern operating systems do lots of data-sharing between processes, some of it completely non-writable, other parts of it "copy on write". Copy-on-write pages are implemented by setting the WP bit and then catching the page fault generated by the CPU when a process tries to write the page. The fault handler quickly copies the page in question, allows the write to hit the copy, and reswizzles the page table so the virtual page of the writing process points to the new copy. WP bits being ignored would also break this, so lots of cases where data is "opportunistically" shared would become really and truly shared, allowing one process to corrupt data used by another.

There are other issues as well... but these are a good sample, and should give an idea of what kind of bad stuff these CPU bugs/changes can make possible.

Re:Yay AMD

[TheRaven64]

SPARC is doing very well for certain categories of workload, although mainly web-app types at the moment. Most computers sold these days have some form of ARM chip[1], which is a nice, low-power architecture, but lacks floating point. This isn't a huge problem, since a lot of ARM designs (particularly those from TI) have a DSP on die which can seriously out-perform a general purpose CPU for a lot of FPU-heavy workloads.

For general-purpose usage, the most interesting design I've seen recently is the PWRficient from P.A. Semi. It's a nice dual-core 64-bit PowerPC, with low power usage, similar performance to IBM's PowerPC 970 series. It has a lot of nice stuff on-die (crypto, a really shiny DMA architecture, etc).

For a complete round-up of current alternatives, take a look at this article and the next two in the series.

[1] They are generally marketed as 'cell phones' or similar, rather than 'computers'.