[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170207111011.GB28790@leverpostej>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:10:12 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Windsor <dwindsor@...il.com>,
Hans Liljestrand <ishkamiel@...il.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH 4/4] refcount: Report failures
through CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 09:34:05AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 08:54:38AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Like I wrote, ideally we'd end up using something like the x86 exception
> > > table with a custom handler. Just no idea how to pull that off without
> > > doing a full blown arch specific implementation, so I didn't go there
> > > quite yet.
> >
> > I haven't spent much time looking at the extable stuff. (Though
> > coincidentally, I was poking at it for x86's test_nx stuff...) I
> > thought there was a way to build arch-agnostic extables already?
> > kernel/extable.c is unconditionally built-in, for example.
>
> That doesn't seem to be of much use. It only contains section sort and
> search functions.
>
> Another problem for generic code would be to figure out what register
> the relevant variable would live in at the time of exception. Here its
> 'obviously' EAX because that's what cmpxchg requires, but in generic
> you'd need a means of querying GCC's register allocator at the exception
> point and somehow using that information for the generation of the
> exception handler.
I think we only need two arch-specific primitives:
(a) mangle a GCC assigned register into an idx stored in the extable
(b) take said index, and grab the relevant register from pt_regs
Then you can have a BUG_VALUE(v, ...), where we use an input "r" (val),
and mangle that into the idx in the extable. In the common case, I'd
hope GCC would leave the register in-place from the cmpxchg.
... or have I misundertood? :)
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists