linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/5] Thread-local ABI system call: cache CPU number of running thread

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, 7 Apr 2016 14:03:53 +0200
From:	Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>, rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/5] Thread-local ABI system call: cache CPU number
 of running thread

On 04/07/2016 01:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 12:39:21PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 04/07/2016 12:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:01:25AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>> Because ideally this structure would be part of the initial (glibc) TCB
>>>>> with fixed offset etc.
>>>>
>>>> This is not possible because we have layering violations and code
>>>> assumes it knows the precise of the glibc TCB.  I think Address
>>>> Sanitizer is in this category.  This means we cannot adjust the TCB size
>>>> based on the kernel headers used to compile glibc, and there will have
>>>> to be some indirection.
>>>
>>> So with the proposed fixed sized object it would work, right?
>>
>> I didn't see a proposal for a fixed size buffer, in the sense that the
>> size of struct sockaddr_in is fixed.
> 
> This thing proposed a single 64byte structure (with the possibility of
> eventually adding more 64byte structures). Basically:
> 
> struct tlabi {
> 	union {
> 		__u8[64] __foo;
> 		struct {
> 			/* fields go here */
> 		};
> 	};
> } __aligned__(64);

That's not really “fixed size” as far as an ABI is concerned, due to the
possibility of future extensions.

> People objected against the fixed size scheme, but it being possible to
> get a fixed TCB offset and reduce indirections is a big win IMO.

It's a difficult trade-off.  It's not an indirection as such, it's avoid
loading the dynamic TLS offset.

Let me repeat that the ELF TLS GNU ABI has very limited support for
static offsets at present, and it is difficult to make them available
more widely without code generation at run time (in the form of text
relocations, but still).

Florian