[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180706140643.u2vau63nncg23hmi@treble>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:06:43 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
brgerst@...il.com, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dvlasenk@...hat.com, h.peter.anvin@...el.com,
linux-tip-commits <linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/crypto: Add missing RETs
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:58:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > > So that's still incomplete in that doesn't analyze the 32-bit build yet, right?
> >
> > We could do INT3s on 64-bit and NOPs on 32-bit.
> >
> > Or, possibly even better, we could just keep NOPs everywhere and instead
> > make objtool smart enough to detect function fallthroughs. That should
> > be pretty easy, actually. It already does it for C files.
> >
> > Something like the below should work, though it's still got a few
> > issues:
> >
> > a) objtool is currently disabled for crypto code because it doesn't
> > yet understand crypto stack re-alignments (which really needs
> > fixing anyway); and
> >
> > b) it complains about the blank xen hypercalls falling through. Those
> > aren't actual functions anyway, so we should probably annotate
> > those somehow so that objtool ignores them anyway.
> >
> > I'm a bit swamped at the moment but I can fix those once I get a little
> > more bandwidth. I at least verified that this patch caught the crypto
> > missing RETs.
>
> Great, I'd be perfectly fine with such an approach.
>
> Also, if we have that then we could re-apply Alexey's patch and switch to INT3
> (only on 64-bit kernels) without any trouble, because objtool should detect any
> execution flow bugs before the INT3 could trigger, right?
>
> I.e. any INT3 fault would show a combination of *both* an objtool bug and a
> probable code flow bug - which I suspect would warrant crashing the box ...
Sounds good to me. I can take Alexey's patch and submit a 64-bit
version of it, along with the relevant objtool changes (though it may
still be a few weeks before I get the chance).
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists