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

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

Message-ID: <20131130165122.GA24507@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:51:22 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, x86@...nel.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add a text_poke syscall v2

Sorry for completely offtopic question, but while we are here...

On 11/30, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> We have moved from using stop_machine() to int3-based patching exactly
> because it's much more lightweight.

I don't really understans the barriers in poke_int3_handler() and
text_poke_bp(). To the point, I do not really understand why do we
actually need bp_patching_in_progress, but lets ignore this.

Lets look at the end of text_poke_bp(), it does

	on_each_cpu(do_sync_core, NULL, 1);

	bp_patching_in_progress = false;
	smp_wmb();

First of all, this smp_wmb() is not clear. But what I actually
can't understand is why it is safe to clear bp_patching_in_progress.

OK, on_each_cpu() should serialize us with do_int3(), but only if
poke_int3_handler() is called with irqs disabled.

However, do_int3() does preempt_conditional_sti() and this looks
as if it can be called with irqs enabled? If this is actually
possible then text_poke_bp() needs synchronize_sched() to avoid
the races with poke_int3_handler(), afaics.

OTOH, int3 is GATE_INTERRUPT, doesn't this mean that that do_int3()
can enable irqs unconditionally and on_each_cpu() also acts as a
synchronization barrier?

Oleg.

--
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/