linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] DWARF: add the config option

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: <CALCETrXhP9wvFjj_krbzUZB5Zpx0cXc55KV6iQhdWEGf3LPQWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 May 2017 19:31:50 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] DWARF: add the config option

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 05:21:24PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >         struct undwarf {
>> >                 unsigned int ip;        /* instruction pointer (relative offset from base) */
>> >                 unsigned prev_frame:13; /* offset to previous frame from current stack pointer */
>> >                 unsigned regs:1;        /* whether prev_frame contains entry regs (regs->ip) */
>> >                 unsigned align:2;       /* some details for dealing with gcc stack realignment */
>> >         } __packed;
>> >
>> >         extern struct undwarf undwarves[];
>>
>> Some comments in case you're actually planning to do this:
>>
>> 'unsigned int ip' is the majority of the size of this thing.  It might
>> be worth trying to store a lot fewer bits.  You could split the
>> structure into:
>>
>> struct undwarf_header {
>>   unsigned long start_ip;
>>   unsigned align:2;  /* i'm assuming this rarely changes */
>>   ...;
>>   unsigned int offset_to_details;
>> };
>>
>> and
>>
>> struct undwarf_details {
>>   unsigned short ip_offset;
>>   unsigned short prev_frame;
>> };
>>
>> and you'd find the details by first looking up the last header before
>> the ip and then finding the details starting at (uintptr_t)header +
>> header->offset_to_details.
>
> Good idea.  According to some back-of-a-napkin math, a scheme like this
> could reduce the data size from 1.8M down to 1.2M with my kernel config,
> a not-too-shabby 600k savings.
>
>> Also, don't you need some indication of which reg is the base from
>> which you find previous frame?  After all, sometimes GCC will emit a
>> frame pointer even in an otherwise frame-pointer-omitting kernel.
>
> I don't think we *need* to do that.  I believe the base reg can just
> always[*] be the stack pointer, even with frame pointers.

What if there are functions that use alloca or variable length arrays
on the stack?  Functions using AHASH_REQUEST_ON_STACK come to mind.

--Andy