linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/entry/64: move ENTER_IRQ_STACK from interrupt macro to helper function

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: <CALCETrXB+520uESCFVX2rH7NKkmr20+8YmmBONWUBmB1Cq97mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Feb 2018 03:11:20 +0000
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/entry/64: move ENTER_IRQ_STACK from interrupt
 macro to helper function

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Dominik Brodowski
>> <linux@...inikbrodowski.net> wrote:
>>> Moving the switch to IRQ stack from the interrupt macro to the helper
>>> function requires some trickery: All ENTER_IRQ_STACK really cares about
>>> is where the "original" stack -- meaning the GP registers etc. -- is
>>> stored. Therefore, we need to offset the stored RSP value by 8 whenever
>>> ENTER_IRQ_STACK is called from within a function. In such cases, and
>>> after switching to the IRQ stack, we need to push the "original" return
>>> address (i.e. the return address from the call to the interrupt entry
>>> function) to the IRQ stack.
>>>
>>> This trickery allows us to carve another 1k from the text size:
>>>
>>>    text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
>>>   17905       0       0   17905    45f1 entry_64.o-orig
>>>   16897       0       0   16897    4201 entry_64.o
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>>> index de8a0da0d347..3046b12a1acb 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S
>>> @@ -449,10 +449,18 @@ END(irq_entries_start)
>>>   *
>>>   * The invariant is that, if irq_count != -1, then the IRQ stack is in use.
>>>   */
>>> -.macro ENTER_IRQ_STACK regs=1 old_rsp
>>> +.macro ENTER_IRQ_STACK regs=1 old_rsp save_ret=0
>>>         DEBUG_ENTRY_ASSERT_IRQS_OFF
>>>         movq    %rsp, \old_rsp
>>>
>>> +       .if \save_ret
>>> +       /*
>>> +        * If save_ret is set, the original stack contains one additional
>>> +        * entry -- the return address.
>>> +        */
>>> +       addq    $8, \old_rsp
>>> +       .endif
>>> +
>>
>> This is a bit alarming in that you now have live data below RSP.  For
>> x86_32, this would be a big no-no due to NMI.  For x86_64, it might
>> still be bad if there are code paths where NMI is switched to non-IST
>> temporarily, which was the case at some point and might still be the
>> case.  (I think it is.)  Remember that the x86_64 *kernel* ABI has no
>> red zone.
>>
>> It also means that, if you manage to hit vmalloc_fault() in here when
>> you touch the IRQ stack, you're dead.  IOW you hit:
>>
>>         movq    \old_rsp, PER_CPU_VAR(irq_stack_union + IRQ_STACK_SIZE - 8)
>>
>> which gets #PF and eats your return pointer.  Debugging this will be
>> quite nasty because you'll only hit it on really huge systems after a
>> thread gets migrated, and even then only if you get unlucky on your
>> stack alignment.
>>
>> So can you find another way to do this?
>
> It's adding 8 to the temp register, not %rsp.

Duh.