linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] x86: pad assembly functions with INT3

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: <D6F6643E-1206-4D87-B8ED-5FF17C15A0EF@zytor.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 May 2018 04:05:31 -0700
From:   hpa@...or.com
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        "'Alexey Dobriyan'" <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: pad assembly functions with INT3

On May 14, 2018 2:04:38 AM PDT, David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
>From: H. Peter Anvin
>> Sent: 11 May 2018 19:54
>> 
>> On 05/10/18 09:39, David Laight wrote:
>> > From: Alexey Dobriyan
>> >> Sent: 07 May 2018 22:38
>> >>
>> >> Use INT3 instead of NOP. All that padding between functions is
>> >> an illegal area, no legitimate code should jump into it.
>> >>
>> >> I've checked x86_64 allyesconfig disassembly, all changes looks
>sane:
>> >> INT3 is only used after RET or unconditional JMP.
>> >
>> > I thought there was a performance penalty (on at least some cpu)
>> > depending on the number of and the actual instructions used for
>padding.
>> >
>> > I believe that is why gcc generates a small number of very long
>'nop'
>> > instructions when padding code.
>> >
>> 
>> There is a performance penalty for using NOP instructions *in the
>> fallthrough case.*  In the case where the padding is never supposed
>to
>> be executed, which is what we're talking about here, it is
>irrelevant.
>
>Not completely irrelevant, the instructions stream gets fetched and
>decoded
>beyond the jmp/ret at the end of the function.
>At some point the cpu will decode the jmp/ret and fetch/decode from the
>target address.
>I guess it won't try to speculatively execute the 'pad' instructions
>- but you can never really tell!
>
>	David

The CPU doesn't speculate down past an unconditional control transfer. Doing so would be idiotic.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.