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: <CAHk-=wjN=sow0F-UtA6DtHHT_CNUV7wYVe3cQ4E8GPp4LN32+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 11:08:26 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.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, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:58 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> In contrast, if the call was wrapped in an inline asm, we'd *know* the
> compiler couldn't turn a "call wrapper(%rip)" into anything else.

Actually, I think I have a better model - if the caller is done with inline asm.

What you can do then is basically add a single-byte prefix to the
"call" instruction that does nothing (say, cs override), and then
replace *that* with a 'int3' instruction.

Boom. Done.

Now, the "int3" handler can just update the instruction in-place, but
leave the "int3" in place, and then return to the next instruction
byte (which is just the normal branch instruction without the prefix
byte).

The cross-CPU case continues to work, because the 'int3' remains in
place until after the IPI.

But that would require that we'd mark those call instruction with

                  Linus