linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 01/13] x86/retpoline: Add initial retpoline support

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:   Fri, 5 Jan 2018 16:11:07 -0500
From:   Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
To:     "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
        "keescook@...gle.com" <keescook@...gle.com>,
        "gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
        "pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
        "dave.hansen@...el.com" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "luto@...capital.net" <luto@...capital.net>,
        "jikos@...nel.org" <jikos@...nel.org>,
        "gregkh@...ux-foundation.org" <gregkh@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/13] x86/retpoline: Add initial retpoline support

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Woodhouse, David <dwmw@...zon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-05 at 09:28 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I would suggest against expecting altinstructions to have
>> relocation information. They are generated in a different place, so..
>>
>> That said, I honestly like the inline version (the one that is in the
>> google paper first) of the retpoline more than the out-of-line one.
>> And that one shouldn't have any relocation issues, because all the
>> offsets are relative.
>
> Note that the *only* issue with the relocation is that it pushes me to
> use X86_FEATURE_NO_RETPOLINE for my feature instead of
> X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE as might be natural. And actually there's a
> motivation to do that anyway, because of the way three-way alternatives
> interact.
>
> With the existing negative flag I can do
>
>  ALTERNATIVE_2(retpoline, K8: lfence+jmp; NO_RETPOLINE: jmp)
>
> But if I invert it, I think I need two feature flags to get the same functionality — X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE and X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE_AMD:
>
>  ALTERNATIVE_2(jmp, RETPOLINE: retpoline, RETPOLINE_AMD: lfence+jmp)

Another way to do it is with two consecutive alternatives:

ALTERNATIVE(NOP, K8: lfence)
ALTERNATIVE(jmp indirect, RETPOLINE: jmp thunk)

This also avoids the issue with the relocation of the jmp target when
the replacement is more than one instruction.

--
Brian Gerst