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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:42:17 +0200 From: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com> To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> Cc: Quentin Casasnovas <quentin.casasnovas@...cle.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/xsave: Robustify and merge macros On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:48:24PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:33:06PM +0200, Quentin Casasnovas wrote: > > > Basically, the idea was: > > > > > > .skip len(repl1) - len(orig), 0x90 > > > .skip len(repl2) - len(repl1), 0x90 > > > > > > BUT!, for some reason I changed it to what's there now and I can't > > > remember why anymore. > > > > I think it would not work in the case where repl1 is smaller or equal than > > orig_insn (i.e. no padding in the first .skip) but orig_insn is strictly > > smaller than repl2 (since we're never comparing repl2 with insn in this > > new-old code). > > orig_insn=4 > repl1=3 > repl2=5 > > .skip 0, 0x90 > .skip 2, 0x90 > > I think that still works, only the padding is larger than it needs to > be. And it is so many bytes larger as len(abs(repl1 - orig_insn)) is. > > In the example above, we'll get two bytes padding while only 1 suffices. > Right. > > Anything wrong with the two different approaches I've suggested in my > > original mail? > > Right now, I want to have a minimal fix for obvious reasons. We can > always improve stuff later when there's more time. > If you're happy with the extra padding in such cases then your second approach looks okay to me. But IMO, even if taking the '.if' directive approach is certainly bigger LOC-wise, it should be much easier to review in a rush than some other .skip trickery. It all depends on your definition of minimal change really, and whether that extra padding is acceptable or not for you :) Quentin -- 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