linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Add XSAVES system states for shadow stack

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, 11 Nov 2018 12:31:25 +0100
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Add XSAVES system states for
 shadow stack

> > > > +/*
> > > > + * State component 12 is Control flow Enforcement kernel states
> > > > + */
> > > > +struct cet_kernel_state {
> > > > +       u64 kernel_ssp; /* kernel shadow stack */
> > > > +       u64 pl1_ssp;    /* ring-1 shadow stack */
> > > > +       u64 pl2_ssp;    /* ring-2 shadow stack */
> > > > +} __packed;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Why are these __packed?  It seems like it'll generate bad code for no
> > > obvious purpose.
> >
> > That prevents any possibility that the compiler will insert padding, although in
> > 64-bit kernel this should not happen to either struct.  Also all xstate
> > components here are packed.
> >
> 
> They both seem like bugs, perhaps.  As I understand it, __packed
> removes padding, but it also forces the compiler to expect the fields
> to be unaligned even if they are actually aligned.

This structure is shared with hardware, right? __packed seems like
right thing to do semantically.

As x86 handles unaligned accesses automatically, there should not be
much difference either way.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)