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 16:45:26 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        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>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...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 4:32 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 03:35:02PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 11/8/18 2:00 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > struct a {
> > >     char c;
> > >     struct b b;
> > > };
> > >
> > > we want struct b to start at offset 8, but with __packed, it will start
> > > at offset 1.
> >
> > You're talking about how we want the struct laid out in memory if we
> > have control over the layout.  I'm talking about what happens if
> > something *else* tells us the layout, like a hardware specification
> > which is what is in play with the XSAVE instruction dictated layout
> > that's in question here.
> >
> > What I'm concerned about is a structure like this:
> >
> > struct foo {
> >         u32 i1;
> >         u64 i2;
> > };
> >
> > If we leave that to natural alignment, we end up with a 16-byte
> > structure laid out like this:
> >
> >       0-3     i1
> >       3-8     alignment gap
> >       8-15    i2
>
> I know you actually meant:
>
>         0-3     i1
>         4-7     pad
>         8-15    i2
>
> > Which isn't what we want.  We want a 12-byte structure, laid out like this:
> >
> >       0-3     i1
> >       4-11    i2
> >
> > Which we get with:
> >
> > struct foo {
> >         u32 i1;
> >         u64 i2;
> > } __packed;
>
> But we _also_ get pessimised accesses to i1 and i2.  Because gcc can't
> rely on struct foo being aligned to a 4 or even 8 byte boundary (it
> might be embedded in "struct a" from above).
>

In the event we end up with a hardware structure that has
not-really-aligned elements, I suspect we can ask gcc for a new
extension to help.  Or maybe some hack like:

struct foo {
  u32 i1;
  struct {
    u64 i2;
  } __attribute__((packed));
};

would do the trick.