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: <20181129183712.s5eocp5hf4ta4zks@treble>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:37:12 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        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 06:15:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:59:31AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> > If you make it conditional on CPL, do it for 32-bit as well, add
> > comments, 
> 
> > and convince yourself that there isn’t a better solution
> > (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.
> 
> Right; so we _could_ grow the trampoline with a retpoline indirect call
> and ret. It just makes the trampoline a whole lot bigger, but it could
> work.

I'm trying to envision how this would work.  How would the function (or
stub) know how to return back to the call site?

-- 
Josh