linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: move FPU state into separate cache

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]

Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:35:16 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        He Chen <he.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@...el.com>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/fpu: move FPU state into separate cache

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>
>> They're adjacent already, which poses a problem for the struct layout
>> randomization plugin, since adjacency may no longer be true (after
>> layout randomization). T
>
> What?
>
> The layout randomization can't change anything, if you just make the
> adjacency be done explicitly instead of by having the thing be a fixed
> member.
>
> The trivial model might be to just declare the fpu part as an unsized
> array at the end:
>
>         /* Floating point and extended processor state */
>         struct fpu              fpu[];
>
> because there is no way in hell that any randomization code can move
> those kinds of unsized arrays around. If it does, the gcc plugin is
> such unbelievable garbage that it would be insane to depend on such
> shit in the first place.
>

Randomization also needs to leave thread_info at the beginning.  Can it do that?