linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add a text

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]

Message-ID: <5294F10C.8060901@amacapital.net>
Date:	Tue, 26 Nov 2013 11:05:48 -0800
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a text_poke syscall v2

On 11/25/2013 04:37 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> [Addressed all addressable review feedback in v2]
> 
> Properly patching running code ("cross modification")
> is a quite complicated business on x86.
> 
> The CPU has specific rules that need to be followed, including
> multiple global barriers.
> 
> Self modifying code is getting more popular, so it's important
> to make it easy to follow the rules.
> 
> The kernel does it properly with text_poke_bp(). But the same
> method is hard to do for user programs.
> 
> This patch adds a (x86 specific) text_poke() syscall that exposes
> the text_poke_bp() machinery to user programs.
> 
> The interface is practically the same as text_poke_bp, just as
> a syscall. I added an extra flags parameter, for future
> extension.  Right now it is enforced to be 0.
> 
> The call also still has a global lock, so it has some scaling
> limitations. If it was commonly used this could be fixed
> by setting up a list of break point locations. Then
> a lock would only be hold to modify the list.
> 
> Right now the implementation is just as simple as possible.

IIRC someone proposed that, rather than specifying a "handler", that any
user thread that traps just wait until the poke completes.  This would
complicate the kernel implementation a bit, but it would make the user
code a good deal simpler.  Is there any reason that this is a bad idea?

--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/