linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Marker probes in futex.c

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:48:14 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] Marker probes in futex.c

* Arjan van de Ven (arjan@...radead.org) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:00:09 -0400
> Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> > > > > If we want to support NMI context and have the ability to
> > > > > instrument preemptable code without too much headache, we must
> > > > > insure that every modification will leave the code in a
> > > > > "correct" state and that we do not grow the size of any
> > > > > reachable instruction.  Also, we must insure gcc did not put
> > > > > code between these instructions. Modifying non-relocatable
> > > > > instructions would also be a pain, since we would have to deal
> > > > > with instruction pointer relocation in the breakpoint code when
> > > > > the code modification is being done.
> > > 
> > > you also need to make sure no cpu is executing that code ever.. 
> > > but you already deal with that right?
> > > 
> > 
> > By "insure that every modification will leave the code in a "correct"
> > state", I mean that at any given time before, during or after the code
> > modification, if an NMI comes on any CPU and try to run the modified
> > code, it should have a valid version of the code to execute. Does it
> > make more sense ?
> 
> I understand your words. My concern is that I don't quite understand how you
> guarantee that you'll not be executing the code you're modifying.
> Just saying "it's consistent before and after" sounds nice but probably isn't
> enough to be safe.
> 
Ah, I see. I insert a breakpoint and execute a bypass rather than the
code being modified. I only put back the 1st instruction byte after the
rest of the instruction has been modified.

> 
> 
> > Not only does the compare and jmp need to be consecutive, but the movb
> > $0x0,%al also does. I *could* try to detect specific code inserted in
> > between, but I really have to make sure I don't get burned by the
> > compiler inserting a jmp there.
> 
> I wonder if just sticking in 2 barriers around your code make gcc stop moving stuff too much
> 

I'm not sure people would like the side-effect for the rest of
optimizations, but it should be tried.

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/