linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: disallow ARM

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:   Sun, 18 Dec 2016 14:16:31 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Jonas Jensen <jonas.jensen@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: disallow ARM_THUMB for ARMv4 builds

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:57:00AM +0000, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 16 December 2016 at 21:51, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 5:20:22 PM CET Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>
> >> Can't we use the old
> >>
> >> tst lr, #1
> >> moveq pc, lr
> >> bx lr
> >>
> >> trick? (where bx lr needs to be emitted as a plain opcode to hide it
> >> from the assembler)
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that should work around the specific problem in theory, but back
> > when Jonas tried it, it still didn't work. There may also be other
> > problems in that configuration.
> >
> 
> This should do the trick as well, I think:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
> index 9f157e7c51e7..3bfb32010234 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S
> @@ -835,7 +835,12 @@ ENDPROC(__switch_to)
> 
>         .macro  usr_ret, reg
>  #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_THUMB
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_32v4
> +       str     \reg, [sp, #-4]!
> +       ldr     pc, [sp], #4
> +#else
>         bx      \reg
> +#endif
>  #else
>         ret     \reg
>  #endif
> 
> with the added benefit that we don't clobber the N and Z flags. Of
> course, this will result in all CPUs using a non-optimal sequence if
> support for v4 is compiled in.

We don't clobber those flags anyway.  bx doesn't change any of the flags.
'ret' devolves into either bx or a mov instruction.  A mov instruction
without 's' does not change the flags either.

So there is no "added benefit".  In fact, there's only detrimental
effects.  str and ldr are going to be several cycles longer than the
plain mov.

In any case, the "CONFIG_CPU_32v4" alone doesn't hack it, we also have
CONFIG_CPU_32v3 to also consider.

In any case, I prefer the solution previously posted - to test bit 0 of
the PC, and select the instruction based on that.  It'll take some
assembly level macros to handle all cases.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.