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: <20181129125857.75c55b96@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:58:57 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        jbaron@...mai.com, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        David.Laight@...lab.com, bp@...en8.de, julia@...com,
        jeyu@...nel.org, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] x86/static_call: Add inline static call
 implementation for x86-64

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:50:28 -0800
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 9:44 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > Well, the current method (as Jiri mentioned) did get the OK from at
> > least Intel (and that was with a lot of arm twisting to do so).  
> 
> Guys, when the comparison is to:
> 
>  - create a huge honking security hole by screwing up the stack frame
> 
> or
> 
>  - corrupt random registers because we "know" they aren't in use
> 
> then it really sounds pretty safe to just say "ok, just make it
> aligned and update the instruction with an atomic cmpxchg or
> something".

Do you realize that the cmpxchg used by the first attempts of the
dynamic modification of code by ftrace was the source of the e1000e
NVRAM corruption bug.

It's because it happened to do it to IO write only memory, and a
cmpxchg will *always* write, even if it didn't match. It will just
write out what it read.

In the case of the e1000e bug, it read 0xffffffff and that's what it
wrote back out.

So no, I don't think that's a better solution.

-- Steve


> 
> Of course, another option is to just say "we don't do the inline case,
> then", and only ever do a call to a stub that does a "jmp"
> instruction.
> 
> Problem solved, at the cost of some I$. Emulating a "jmp" is trivial,
> in ways emulating a "call" is not.
> 
>               Linus