linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86: Enumerate kernel FSGS capability in AT

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: <20160321185429.GY5083@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:54:29 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86: Enumerate kernel FSGS capability in AT_HWCAP2

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:49:44PM -0400, Brian Gerst wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> >
> > The kernel needs to explicitely enable RD/WRFSBASE to handle context
> > switch correctly. So the application needs to know if it can safely use
> > these instruction. Just looking at the CPUID bit is not enough because it
> > may be running in a kernel that does not enable the instructions.
> >
> > One way for the application would be to just try and catch the SIGILL.
> > But that is difficult to do in libraries which may not want
> > to overwrite the signal handlers of the main application.
> >
> > So we need to provide a way for the application to discover the kernel
> > capability.
> >
> > I used AT_HWCAP2 in the ELF aux vector which is already used by
> > PPC for similar things. We define a new Linux defined bitmap
> > returned in AT_HWCAP.  Currently it has only one bit set,
> > for kernel is FSGSBASE capable.
> >
> > The application can then access it manually or using
> > the getauxval() function in newer glibc.
> 
> How about adding a VDSO function instead?  The VDSO can use
> alternatives, so it can use the new instructions if supported, or else
> use the old syscall.

What would be the point of that?

It would be a lot more complicated, and I don't see any advantages
over the aux vector. vdso also requires custom assembler 
stubs in the C library.

-Andi