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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20080416083219.0f54a22b@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:32:19 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
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

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:48:14 -0400
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca> wrote:

> * 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.

sorry but I'm not convinced that that is safe without a real exclusion mechanism.
--
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/