linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] gcc feature request: Moving blocks into sections

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:	Tue, 6 Aug 2013 00:14:37 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, gcc <gcc@....gnu.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	Behan Webster <behanw@...verseincode.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gcc feature request: Moving blocks into sections

* H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...ux.intel.com) wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 02:28 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Linus Torvalds (torvalds@...ux-foundation.org) wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
> >> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I remember that choosing between 2 and 5 bytes nop in the asm goto was
> >>> tricky: it had something to do with the fact that gcc doesn't know the
> >>> exact size of each instructions until further down within compilation
> >>
> >> Oh, you can't do it in the coompiler, no. But you don't need to. The
> >> assembler will pick the right version if you just do "jmp target".
> > 
> > Yep.
> > 
> > Another thing that bothers me with Steven's approach is that decoding
> > jumps generated by the compiler seems fragile IMHO.
> > 
> > x86 decoding proposed by https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/8/464 :
> > 
> > +static int make_nop_x86(void *map, size_t const offset)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned char *op;
> > +	unsigned char *nop;
> > +	int size;
> > +
> > +	/* Determine which type of jmp this is 2 byte or 5. */
> > +	op = map + offset;
> > +	switch (*op) {
> > +	case 0xeb: /* 2 byte */
> > +		size = 2;
> > +		nop = ideal_nop2_x86;
> > +		break;
> > +	case 0xe9: /* 5 byte */
> > +		size = 5;
> > +		nop = ideal_nop;
> > +		break;
> > +	default:
> > +		die(NULL, "Bad jump label section (bad op %x)\n", *op);
> > +		__builtin_unreachable();
> > +	}
> > 
> > My though is that the code above does not cover all jump encodings that
> > can be generated by past, current and future x86 assemblers.
> > 
> 
> For unconditional jmp that should be pretty safe barring any fundamental
> changes to the instruction set, in which case we can enable it as
> needed, but for extra robustness it probably should skip prefix bytes.

On x86-32, some prefixes are actually meaningful. AFAIK, the 0x66 prefix
is used for:

E9 cw   jmp rel16   relative jump, only in 32-bit

Other prefixes can probably be safely skipped.

Another question is whether anything prevents the assembler from
generating a jump near (absolute indirect), or far jump. The code above
seems to assume that we have either a short or near relative jump.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/