linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] x86: Split syscall_trace

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, 29 Jul 2014 10:01:47 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] x86: Split syscall_trace_enter into two phases

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 07/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Andy,
>> >
>> > I am really sorry for delay.
>> >
>> > This is on top of the recent change from Kees, right? Could me remind me
>> > where can I found the tree this series based on? So that I could actually
>> > apply these changes...
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=seccomp/fastpath
>>
>> The first four patches are already applied there.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> > If I understand correctly, syscall_trace_enter() can avoid _phase2() above.
>> > But we should always call user_exit() unconditionally?
>>
>> Damnit.  I read that every function called by user_exit, and none of
>> them give any indication of why they're needed for traced syscalls but
>> not for untraced syscalls.  On a second look, it seems that TIF_NOHZ
>> controls it.
>
> Yes, just to trigger the slow path, I guess.
>
>> I'll update the code to call user_exit iff TIF_NOHZ is
>> set.
>
> Or perhaps it would be better to not add another user of this (strange) flag
> and just call user_exit() unconditionally(). But, yes, you need to use
> from "work = flags & (_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY & ~TIF_NOHZ)" then.\

user_exit looks slow enough to me that a branch to try to avoid it may
be worthwhile.  I bet that explicitly checking the flag is
actually both faster and clearer.  That's what I did for v4.

--Andy

>
>> > And we should always set X86_EFLAGS_TF if TIF_SINGLESTEP? IIRC, TF can be
>> > actually cleared on a 32bit kernel if we step over sysenter insn?
>>
>> I don't follow.  If TIF_SINGLESTEP, then phase1 will return a nonzero
>> value,
>
> Ah yes, thanks, I missed this.
>
> Oleg.
>



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/