linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: introduce int3-based instruction patching

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:	Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:29:18 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: introduce int3-based instruction
 patching

On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> >> + * The way it is done:
> >> + *	- add a int3 trap to the address that will be patched
> >> + *	- sync cores
> > 
> > You don't need this "sync cores". (and your code didn't) :)
> 
> I believe you do, lest you get "Frankenstructions".  I believe you don't
> need the second one, however.  I should dig up my notes on this.

I found this post from 2010 from you:

	http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1001.1/01530.html

If it's still valid and you guys at Intel haven't discovered any reason 
why that procedure would be invalid, I'll send out v3 with that'd be using 
exactly this ordering of syncing of the cores.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
--
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/