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  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, 7 Oct 2014 07:19:00 -0400
From:	Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:	Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@...tec.com>
Cc:	David Daney <david.s.daney@...il.com>,
	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	David Daney <ddaney.cavm@...il.com>,
	"libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mips@...ux-mips.org" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>,
	Leonid Yegoshin <Leonid.Yegoshin@...tec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] MIPS: Allow FPU emulator to use non-stack area.

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 09:13:22AM +0000, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> From what I can see the out-of-line execution of delay slot instructions
> will break micromips R3 addiupc, and all MIPS32r6 and MIPS64r6 PC-relative
> instructions (inc load/store) as they will have the wrong base. Is there
> anything in the current set of proposals that can address this (beyond
> adding restrictions to what is ABI allowed in FPU branch delay slots)?

Yes. If a trampoline is being generated to replace the delay slot
instruction, it can just contain more complex code to duplicate what
the PC-relative instruction would have done. Since the ABI already
assumes a stack is available, it can use the stack to backup registers
it needs for scratch space and restore them.

> This is an issue whether the stack is executable or not but does directly
> relate to the topic of FPU emulation.  It sounds like the kernel would not
> be able to emulate a pc-relative load/store even if it was a special case
> as it would not run in the correct MM context? [be gentle, I'm no expert
> in this area].

Really everything should be done in the kernel, and it's not as hard
as people are making it look. The kernel _already_ has to enforce MM
context permissions for every syscall that reads or writes user memory
(e.g. futex with PI mutexes or FUTEX_WAKE_OP, or even simple things
like read/write) so there's no reason it can't do emulated
loads/stores the exact same way.

Rich
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists