linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call implementation for x86-64

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: <20181129171050.iio53bw67fbiwzud@treble>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:10:50 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, julia@...com, jeyu@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
 implementation for x86-64

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:59:31AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:33:42AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >>> can't we 'fix' that again? The alternative is moving that IRET-frame and
> >>> fixing everything up, which is going to be fragile, ugly and such
> >>> things more.
> > 
> >> This seems to work...
> > 
> > That's almost too easy... nice!
> 
> It is indeed too easy: you’re putting pt_regs in the wrong place for
> int3 from user mode, which is probably a root hole if you arrange for
> a ptraced process to do int3 and try to write to whatever register
> aliases CS.
> 
> If you make it conditional on CPL, do it for 32-bit as well, add
> comments convince yourself that there isn’t a better solution

I could do that - but why subject 32-bit to it?  I was going to make it
conditional on CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL_INLINE which is 64-bit only.

> (like pointing IP at a stub that retpolines to the target by reading
> the function pointer, a la the unoptimizable version), then okay, I
> guess, with only a small amount of grumbling.

I tried that in v2, but Peter pointed out it's racy:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181126160217.GR2113@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

-- 
Josh