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  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:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 09:36:32 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Peter Zijlstra' <>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <>
CC:     Sami Tolvanen <>,
        Mark Rutland <>, X86 ML <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        "Nathan Chancellor" <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Sedat Dilek <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,
        "" <>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <>,
        "" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching

From: Peter Zijlstra
> Sent: 01 November 2021 09:02
> In any case, I really want the discussion to start at square one, and
> show/explain why any chosen CFI scheme is actually good for the kernel.
> Just because clang happened to have implemented it, doesn't make it the
> most suitable scheme for the kernel.

How much overhead does it add to write("/dev/null", "", 1) ?
You've two large jump tables.
One for the syscall entry - (all the syscalls have the
same prototype), and a second for selecting the correct
device driver's 'write' entry point.

You really don't want to be doing any kind of search.

Hardware that supported a (say) 16-bit constant in both the
'landing pad' and call indirect instruction and trapped if
they differed would be useful - but I doubt any hardware
that checks landing pads is anywhere near that useful.


Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists