linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/INCOMPLETE 00/13] x86: Rewrite exit-to-userspace code

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: <20150618101110.GA5100@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 12:11:10 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/INCOMPLETE 00/13] x86: Rewrite exit-to-userspace code

* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> > The only low level bits remaining in assembly will be low level hardware ABI 
> > details: saving registers and restoring registers to the expected format - no 
> > 'active' code whatsoever.
> 
> I think this is true for syscalls.  Getting the weird special cases (IRET and GS 
> fault) for error_entry to work correctly in C could be tricky.

Correct, and I double checked the IRET fault path yesterday (fixup_bad_iret), and 
it looks like a straightforward exception handler with limited control flow. It 
can stay in asm just fine, it seems mostly orthogonal to the rest.

I didn't check the GS fault path, but that only affects 32-bit, as we use SWAPGS 
on 64-bit, right? In any case, that code too (32-bit RESTORE_REGS) belongs into 
the natural 'hardware ABI preparation code' that should stay in assembly. (Unless 
I missed some other code that might cause trouble.)

The most deadly complexity in our asm code are IMHO the intertwined threads of 
control flow - all of that should go into C, where it's much easier to see what's 
going on, because we have named variables, established code patterns and a 
compiler checking for common mistakes and such.

The other big area of complexity are our partial save/restore tricks, which makes 
tracking of what is saved (and what is not) tricky and fragile.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/