linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/pti/64: Remove the SYSCALL64 entry trampoline

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809072145460.1402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Fri, 7 Sep 2018 21:54:11 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/pti/64: Remove the SYSCALL64 entry
 trampoline

On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Can we have a few words on why this solution and not this alternative? I
> > mean, you raise the possibility, but then surely you chose not to
> > implement that. Might as well share that with us.
> 
> I can give some pros and cons.  With the other approach:
> 
>  - We avoid a pipeline stall.

Which is good.

>  - We execute from an extra page and read from another extra page
> during the syscall.  (The latter is because we need to use a relative
> addressing mode to find sp1 -- it's the same *cacheline* we'd use
> anyway, but we're accessing it using an alias, so it's an extra TLB
> entry.)

Ok, but is this really an issue with PTI?

>  - We use more memory.  This would be one page per CPU for a simple
> implementation and 64-ish bytes per CPU or one page per node for a
> more complex implementation.

That's the least interesting argument really.

>  - More code complexity.

Ok, but how much complex code is that?

> I'm not convinced this is a good tradeoff.

Well, the real question here is whether this has any advantage vs. the
percpu area exposure?

Thanks,

	tglx