linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 04/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Add XSAVES system states for shadow stack

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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Nov 2018 14:01:42 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:     Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "H. J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Shanbhogue, Vedvyas" <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/27] x86/fpu/xstate: Add XSAVES system states for
 shadow stack

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:31 PM Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 01:22:54PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why are these __packed?  It seems like it'll generate bad code for no
> > > > obvious purpose.
> > >
> > > That prevents any possibility that the compiler will insert padding, although in
> > > 64-bit kernel this should not happen to either struct.  Also all xstate
> > > components here are packed.
> > >
> >
> > They both seem like bugs, perhaps.  As I understand it, __packed
> > removes padding, but it also forces the compiler to expect the fields
> > to be unaligned even if they are actually aligned.
>
> How is that? Andy, mind to point where you get that this
> attribute forces compiler to make such assumption?

It's from memory.  But gcc seems to agree with me I compiled this:

struct foo {
    int x;
} __attribute__((packed));

int read_foo(struct foo *f)
{
    return f->x;
}

int align_of_foo_x(struct foo *f)
{
    return __alignof__(f->x);
}

Compiling with -O2 gives:

    .globl    read_foo
    .type    read_foo, @function
read_foo:
    movl    (%rdi), %eax
    ret
    .size    read_foo, .-read_foo

    .p2align 4,,15
    .globl    align_of_foo_x
    .type    align_of_foo_x, @function
align_of_foo_x:
    movl    $1, %eax
    ret
    .size    align_of_foo_x, .-align_of_foo_x

So gcc thinks that the x field is one-byte-aligned, but the code is
okay (at least in this instance) on x86.
Building for armv5 gives:

    .type    read_foo, %function
read_foo:
    @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0
    @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0
    @ link register save eliminated.
    ldrb    r3, [r0]    @ zero_extendqisi2
    ldrb    r1, [r0, #1]    @ zero_extendqisi2
    ldrb    r2, [r0, #2]    @ zero_extendqisi2
    orr    r3, r3, r1, lsl #8
    ldrb    r0, [r0, #3]    @ zero_extendqisi2
    orr    r3, r3, r2, lsl #16
    orr    r0, r3, r0, lsl #24
    bx    lr
    .size    read_foo, .-read_foo
    .align    2
    .global    align_of_foo_x
    .syntax unified
    .arm
    .fpu vfpv3-d16
    .type    align_of_foo_x, %function

So I'm pretty sure I'm right.