linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: vdso32/syscall.S: do not load __USER32

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:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:03:49 +0100
From:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: vdso32/syscall.S: do not load __USER32_DS to %ss

On 03/25/2015 10:28 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> 
>> Now we can do a fun hack on top.  On Intel, we have 
>> sysenter/sysexitl and, on AMD, we have syscall/sysretl.  But, if I 
>> read the docs right, Intel has sysretl, too.  So we can ditch 
>> sysexit entirely, since this mechanism no longer has any need to 
>> keep the entry and exit conventions matching.
> 
> So this only affects 32-bit vdsos, because on 64-bit both Intel and 
> AMD have and use SYSCALL/SYSRET.
> 
> So my question would be: what's the performance difference between 
> INT80 and sysenter entries on 32-bit, on modern CPUs?
>
> If it's not too horrible (say below 100 cycles) then we could say that 
> we start out the simplification and robustification by switching Intel 
> over to INT80 + SYSRET on 32-bit, and once we know the 32-bit SYSRET 
> and all the other simplifications work fine we implement the 
> SYSENTER-hack on top of that?

int 0x80 is about 250 cycles slower than syscall/sysenter.
(I mean, the instruction per se, not the full round-trip).
This looks too horrible to ignore :(


> Is there any user-space code that relies on being able to execute an 
> open coded SYSENTER, or are we shielded via the vDSO?

Userspace can't use open-coded sysenter. It will return to a different
address.

Userspace _can_ do this:

my_sysenter:
        push %ecx
        push %edx
        push %ebp
        movl %esp,%ebp
        sysenter
/* end of my_sysenter() */

...
...
...

	call  my_sysenter

but this depends on matching stack layout with one used by vDSO.


--
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/