linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] jump label v3 - x86: Introduce generic jump patching without stop

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:54:08 -0800
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca, tglx@...utronix.de,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, andi@...stfloor.org, roland@...hat.com,
	rth@...hat.com, mhiramat@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] jump label v3 - x86: Introduce generic jump patching
 without stop_machine

On 11/18/2009 02:43 PM, Jason Baron wrote:
> Add text_poke_fixup() which takes a fixup address to where a processor
> jumps if it hits the modifying address while code modifying.
> text_poke_fixup() does following steps for this purpose.
> 
>  1. Setup int3 handler for fixup.
>  2. Put a breakpoint (int3) on the first byte of modifying region,
>     and synchronize code on all CPUs.
>  3. Modify other bytes of modifying region, and synchronize code on all CPUs.
>  4. Modify the first byte of modifying region, and synchronize code
>     on all CPUs.
>  5. Clear int3 handler.
> 
> Thus, if some other processor execute modifying address when step2 to step4,
> it will be jumped to fixup code.
> 
> This still has many limitations for modifying multi-instructions at once.
> However, it is enough for 'a 5 bytes nop replacing with a jump' patching,
> because;
>  - Replaced instruction is just one instruction, which is executed atomically.
>  - Replacing instruction is a jump, so we can set fixup address where the jump
>    goes to.
> 

I just had a thought about this... regardless of if this is safe or not
(which still remains to be determined)... I have a bit more of a
fundamental question about it:

This code ends up taking *two* global IPIs for each instruction
modification.  Each of those requires whole-system synchronization.  How
is this better than taking one IPI and having the other CPUs wait until
the modification is complete before returning?

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/