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: <CALCETrV0P00gvTeqDf7Bo8Lt=kWvEMHwMw4AcV48r5rNaQtKOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:10:58 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86: Enumerate kernel FSGS capability in AT_HWCAP2

On Mar 21, 2016 12:43 PM, "Andi Kleen" <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > It would be less complicated actually, as normal userspace would just
> > continue to call arch_prctl() as it does today.  Glibc would implement
>
> We already have that through the system call, no advantage of
> putting it into a vsyscall.
>
> Also the experience with getcpu and similar so far is that
> vsyscalls are too slow for the users who want really fast paths.
> So they're prefer to use the direct instructions anyways.

Getcpu is mainly slow because the overcomplicated API requires
branches.  I've been tempted to add __vdso_get_cpu as an alternative
that simply returns the CPU number.

>
> > arch_prctl() just like it does with gettimeofday() -- with an ifunc
> > selector [1] that calls the VDSO function if it is available, or the
> > syscall if not.  No custom assembly needed.
>
> vdso always needs custom assembler, please see how glibc implements it.

This is simply not true.

I haven't checked the glibc implementation, and I wouldn't be remotely
surprised if it is maliciously incomprehensible, but there is no
reason whatsoever that using any vdso mechanism other than AT_SYSINFO
itself requires assembler.  AT_SYSINFO, of course, requires assembler
because the calling convention is weird.

--Andy