linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: vdso32/syscall.S: do not load __USER32

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALCETrUuhBvntD5sxz3qbBGpVfEVm+WrvvrBqurF=rWU_2OSAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:17:58 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"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 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: vdso32/syscall.S: do not load __USER32_DS to %ss

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 03/25/2015 10:28 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Now we can do a fun hack on top.  On Intel, we have
>>> sysenter/sysexitl and, on AMD, we have syscall/sysretl.  But, if I
>>> read the docs right, Intel has sysretl, too.  So we can ditch
>>> sysexit entirely, since this mechanism no longer has any need to
>>> keep the entry and exit conventions matching.
>>
>> So this only affects 32-bit vdsos, because on 64-bit both Intel and
>> AMD have and use SYSCALL/SYSRET.
>>
>> So my question would be: what's the performance difference between
>> INT80 and sysenter entries on 32-bit, on modern CPUs?
>>
>> If it's not too horrible (say below 100 cycles) then we could say that
>> we start out the simplification and robustification by switching Intel
>> over to INT80 + SYSRET on 32-bit, and once we know the 32-bit SYSRET
>> and all the other simplifications work fine we implement the
>> SYSENTER-hack on top of that?
>
> int 0x80 is about 250 cycles slower than syscall/sysenter.
> (I mean, the instruction per se, not the full round-trip).
> This looks too horrible to ignore :(

Agreed.

>
>
>> Is there any user-space code that relies on being able to execute an
>> open coded SYSENTER, or are we shielded via the vDSO?
>
> Userspace can't use open-coded sysenter. It will return to a different
> address.
>
> Userspace _can_ do this:
>
> my_sysenter:
>         push %ecx
>         push %edx
>         push %ebp
>         movl %esp,%ebp
>         sysenter
> /* end of my_sysenter() */
>
> ...
> ...
> ...
>
>         call  my_sysenter
>
> but this depends on matching stack layout with one used by vDSO.
>
>

I'd be rather surprised if anyone does that.  It'll die with SIGILL on
AMD systems.  Similarly, open-coded syscall instructions in 32-bit
code will die with SIGILL on Intel systems.

Gee thanks, anyone.

<with time machine>The correct way to do this ought to have been
straightforward.  Syscall should have stashed eip/rip in r8, r9, or
r10, and sysenter shouldn't exist in long mode.  All of this mess
would just disappear completely.</with time machine>

--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/