linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/24] x86,sme: Annotate indirect call

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180129175034.GF2295@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jan 2018 18:50:34 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/24] x86,sme: Annotate indirect call

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 06:49:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 10:37:30AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-01-23 at 16:25 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > This is boot code, we run this _way_ before userspace comes along to
> > > poison our branch predictor.
> > 
> > Hm, objtool knows about sections, doesn't it? Why it is whining about
> > indirect jumps in inittext anyway?
> > 
> > In fact, why are we even *doing* retpolines in inittext? Not that we
> > are; since we flipped the ALTERNATIVE logic around, at that point we
> > still have the 'oldinstr' which is a bare jmp anyway. We might as well
> > do this:
> > 
> > --- a/include/linux/init.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/init.h
> > @@ -37,10 +37,15 @@
> >   * as gcc otherwise puts the data into the bss section and not into the init
> >   * section.
> >   */
> > +#if defined(RETPOLINE) && !defined(MODULE)
> > +#define __noretpoline __attribute__((indirect_branch("keep")))
> > +#else
> > +#define __noretpoline
> > +#endif

Clearly I cannot read...

> >  /* These are for everybody (although not all archs will actually
> >     discard it in modules) */
> > -#define __init         __section(.init.text) __cold __inittrace __latent_entropy
> > +#define __init         __section(.init.text) __cold __inittrace __latent_entropy __noretpoline
> 
> We run module __init text concurrently with userspace.