linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: introduce int3-based instruction patching

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: <51DDD894.3050408@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:56:36 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: introduce int3-based instruction patching

On 07/10/2013 02:48 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:36:41PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> I'm wondering if it would be easier/more general to just return to the
>> instruction. The "more general" bit would allow this to be used for
>> other things, like alternatives, and perhaps eventually dynamic call
>> patching.
> 
> Well, the aspect of not using stop_machine in alternatives is a don't
> care because there we do text_poke_early on the BSP anyway. However,
> there we toggle interrupts so it would probably be interesting to see
> whether a non-interrupt-disabling variant would be faster.
> 
>> Returning to the instruction will, in effect, be a busy-wait for
>> the faulted CPU until the patch is complete; more or less what
>> stop_machine would do, but only for a CPU which actually strays into
>> the affected region.
> 
> Oh, something like we patch in a two-byte jump first:
> 
> 1:
> 	jmp 1b
> 
> until we finish patching the rest? Ha, interesting :).
> 

No, the idea is that the affected CPU will simply execute int3 -> iret
ad nauseam until the first byte is repatched, at that point execution
will resume normally.

	-hpa

--
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/