linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: get rid of KERNEL_STACK

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: <20150318204739.GD3249@pd.tnic>
Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2015 21:47:39 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: get rid of KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:47:34PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> PER_CPU_VAR(kernel_stack) was set up in a way where it points
> five stack slots below the top of stack.
> 
> Presumably, it was done to avoid one "sub $5*8,%rsp"
> in syscall/sysenter code paths, where iret frame needs to be
> created by hand.
> 
> Ironically, none of them benefits from this optimization,
> since all of them need to allocate additional data on stack
> (struct pt_regs), so they still have to perform subtraction.
> 
> This patch eliminates KERNEL_STACK_OFFSET.
> 
> PER_CPU_VAR(kernel_stack) now points directly to top of stack.
> pt_regs allocations are adjusted to allocate iret frame as well.
> Hopefully we can merge it later with 32-bit specific
> PER_CPU_VAR(cpu_current_top_of_stack) variable...
> 
> Semi-mysterious expressions THREAD_INFO(%rsp,RIP) - "why RIP??"
> are now replaced by more logical THREAD_INFO(%rsp,SIZEOF_PTREGS) -
> "calculate thread_info's address using information that
> rsp is SIZEOF_PTREGS bytes below the stack top".

Can we please add those last two lines to the definition of THREAD_INFO
in the header? It is good to have.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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/