linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add VDSO time function support for x86 32-bit kernel

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:	Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:11:55 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, criu@...nvz.org
Cc:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	mingo@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
	john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add VDSO time function support for x86 32-bit kernel

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 05:42 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> The 64-bit/x32 case is currently very simple and fast because it uses
>> absolute addressing.  Admittedly, pcrel references are free, so
>> changing this wouldn't cost much.  For native, it'll be slower, but
>> maybe no one cares.  I seem to care about this more than anyone else,
>> and I don't use 32 bit code. :)
>>
>
> pcrel is actually cheaper than absolute addressing in 64-bit mode.
>
>> The benefit of switching is that the vdso code could be the same in
>> all three cases.  (Actually, it's even better than that.  All of the
>> VVAR magic could be the same in the vdso and the kernel -- the kernel
>> linker script would just have to have an appropriate symbol to see the
>> appropriate mapping.)
>>
>>
>> This:
>>
>> __attribute__((visibility("hidden"))) int foo;
>>
>> int get_foo(void)
>> {
>>   return foo;
>> }
>>
>> generates a rip-relative access on 64 bits and GOTOFF on 32 bits.
>>
>> The only reason I didn't use a real symbol in the first place is
>> because I couldn't figure out how to get gcc to emit an absolute
>> relocation in pic code.
>
> Well, then, we wouldn't need to do that... this is starting to sound
> like a significant win.

How will this avoid breaking checkpoint/restore in userspace?  If the
vdso is not just plain old code, criu presumably needs to know about
it.  Should there be an arch_prctl(ARCH_MAP_VDSO, addr) to create a
vdso mapping somewhere?

--Andy
--
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/