linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 11/13] x86/paravirt: Add paravirt alternatives infrastructure

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:   Tue, 17 Oct 2017 15:50:37 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...izon.com>,
        Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 11/13] x86/paravirt: Add paravirt
 alternatives infrastructure

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 04:36:00PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 10/17/2017 04:17 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 11:36:57AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> On 10/17/2017 10:36 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >>> Maybe we can add a new field to the alternatives entry struct which
> >>> specifies the offset to the CALL instruction, so apply_alternatives()
> >>> can find it.
> >> We'd also have to assume that the restore part of an alternative entry
> >> is the same size as the save part. Which is true now.
> > Why?
> >
> 
> Don't you need to know the size of the instruction without save and
> restore part?
> 
> + if (a->replacementlen == 6 && *insnbuf == 0xff && *(insnbuf+1) == 0x15)
> 
> Otherwise you'd need another field for the actual instruction length.

If we know where the CALL instruction starts, and can verify that it
starts with "ff 15", then we know the instruction length: 6 bytes.
Right?

-- 
Josh