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  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:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 13:45:31 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
        michael.schwarz@...k.tugraz.at,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: KAISER memory layout (Re: [PATCH 06/23] x86, kaiser: introduce
 user-mapped percpu areas)

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> I think we're far enough along here that it may be time to nail down
> >> the memory layout for real.  I propose the following:
> >> 
> >> The user tables will contain the following:
> >> 
> >> - The GDT array.
> >> - The IDT.
> >> - The vsyscall page.  We can make this be _PAGE_USER.
> > 
> > I rather remove it for the kaiser case.
> > 
> >> - The TSS.
> >> - The per-cpu entry stack.  Let's make it one page with guard pages
> >> on either side.  This can replace rsp_scratch.
> >> - cpu_current_top_of_stack.  This could be in the same page as the TSS.
> >> - The entry text.
> >> - The percpu IST (aka "EXCEPTION") stacks.
> > 
> > Do you really want to put the full exception stacks into that user mapping?
> > I think we should not do that. There are two options:
> > 
> >  1) Always use the per-cpu entry stack and switch to the proper IST after
> >     the CR3 fixup
> 
> Can't -- it's microcode, not software, that does that switch.

Well, yes. The micro code does the stack switch to ISTs but software tells
it to do so. We write the IDT IIRC.

> >  2) Have separate per-cpu entry stacks for the ISTs and switch to the real
> >     ones after the CR3 fixup.
> 
> How is that simpler?

Simpler is not the question. I want to avoid mapping the whole IST stacks.

Thanks,

	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists