linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls

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:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 09:20:08 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> These patches are related to two similar patch sets from Ard and Steve:
> >>
> >> - https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181005081333.15018-1-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
> >> - https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181006015110.653946300@goodmis.org
> >>
> >> The code is also heavily inspired by the jump label code, as some of the
> >> concepts are very similar.
> >>
> >> There are three separate implementations, depending on what the arch
> >> supports:
> >>
> >>   1) CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_OPTIMIZED: patched call sites - requires
> >>      objtool and a small amount of arch code
> >>
> >>   2) CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_UNOPTIMIZED: patched trampolines - requires
> >>      a small amount of arch code
> >>
> >>   3) If no arch support, fall back to regular function pointers
> >>
> >>
> >> TODO:
> >>
> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach.  Objtool is (currently)
> >>   x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> >>   everywhere else.  I may experiment with a GCC plugin instead.
> >
> > I'd prefer the objtool approach. It's a pretty reliable first-principles
> > approach while GCC plugin would have to be replicated for Clang and any
> > other compilers, etc.
> >
> 
> I implemented the GCC plugin approach here for arm64
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ardb/linux.git/log/?h=static-calls
>
> That implements both the unoptimized and the optimized versions.

Nice!  That was fast :-)

> I do take your point about GCC and other compilers, but on arm64 we
> don't have a lot of choice.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the GCC plugin is generic (i.e., it does not
> rely on any ARM specific passes, but obviously, this requires a *lot*
> of testing and validation to be taken seriously.

Yeah.  I haven't had a chance to try your plugin on x86 yet, but in
theory it should be arch-independent.

-- 
Josh