linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/12] x86/entry/64: Always run ptregs-using syscalls on the slow path

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: <CAMzpN2jRGcfYOqcjxPvd+ufXK=HHU+dfUftQGnLVmohBPd6o6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Dec 2015 08:07:52 -0500
From:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] x86/entry/64: Always run ptregs-using syscalls on
 the slow path

On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> 64-bit syscalls currently have an optimization in which they are
>>>> called with partial pt_regs.  A small handful require full pt_regs.
>>>>
>>>> In the 32-bit and compat cases, I cleaned this up by forcing full
>>>> pt_regs for all syscalls.  The performance hit doesn't really matter.
>>>>
>>>> I want to clean up the 64-bit case as well, but I don't want to hurt
>>>> fast path performance.  To do that, I want to force the syscalls
>>>> that use pt_regs onto the slow path.  This will enable us to make
>>>> slow path syscalls be real ABI-compliant C functions.
>>>>
>>>> Use the new syscall entry qualification machinery for this.
>>>> stub_clone is now stub_clone/ptregs.
>>>>
>>>> The next patch will eliminate the stubs, and we'll just have
>>>> sys_clone/ptregs.
>>
>> [Resend after gmail web interface fail]
>>
>> I've got an idea on how to do this without the duplicate syscall table.
>>
>> ptregs_foo:
>>     leaq sys_foo(%rip), %rax
>>     jmp stub_ptregs_64
>>
>> stub_ptregs_64:
>>     testl $TS_EXTRAREGS, <current->ti_status>
>>     jnz 1f
>>     SAVE_EXTRA_REGS
>>     call *%rax
>>     RESTORE_EXTRA_REGS
>>     ret
>> 1:
>>     call *%rax
>>     ret
>>
>> This makes sure that the extra regs don't get saved a second time if
>> coming in from the slow path, but preserves the fast path if not
>> tracing.
>
> I think there's value in having the entries in the table be genuine C
> ABI-compliant function pointers.  In your example, it only barely
> works -- you can call them from C only if you have TS_EXTRAREGS set
> appropriately -- -otherwise you crash and burn.  That will break the
> rest of the series.

I'm working on a full patch.  It will set the flag (renamed
TS_SLOWPATH) in do_syscall_64(), which is the only place these
functions can get called from C code.  Your changes already have it
set up so that the slow path saved these registers before calling any
C code.  Where else do you expect them to be called from?

> We could adjust it a bit and check whether we're in C land (by
> checking rsp for ts) and jump into the slow path if we aren't, but I'm
> not sure this is a huge win.  It does save some rodata space by
> avoiding duplicating the table.

The syscall table is huge.  545*8 bytes, over a full page.
Duplicating it for just a few different entries is wasteful.

--
Brian Gerst
--
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/