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]

Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:24:52 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        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 11:27:00AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:08 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> 
> Hmm, cute.  But then the calls are in inline asm, which results in
> giant turds like we have for the pvop vcalls.  And, if they start
> being used more generally, we potentially have ABI issues where the
> calling convention isn't quite what the asm expects, and we explode.
> 
> I propose a different solution:
> 
> As in this patch set, we have a direct and an indirect version.  The
> indirect version remains exactly the same as in this patch set.  The
> direct version just only does the patching when all seems well: the
> call instruction needs to be 0xe8, and we only do it when the thing
> doesn't cross a cache line.  Does that work?  In the rare case where
> the compiler generates something other than 0xe8 or crosses a cache
> line, then the thing just remains as a call to the out of line jmp
> trampoline.  Does that seem reasonable?  It's a very minor change to
> the patch set.

Maybe that would be ok.  If my math is right, we would use the
out-of-line version almost 5% of the time due to cache misalignment of
the address.

> Alternatively, we could actually emulate call instructions like this:
> 
> void __noreturn jump_to_kernel_pt_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, ...)
> {
>   struct pt_regs ptregs_copy = *regs;
>   barrier();
>   *(unsigned long *)(regs->sp - 8) = whatever;  /* may clobber old
> regs, but so what? */
>   asm volatile ("jmp return_to_alternate_ptregs");
> }
> 
> where return_to_alternate_ptregs points rsp to the ptregs and goes
> through the normal return path.  It's ugly, but we could have a test
> case for it, and it should work fine.

Is that really any better than my patch to create a gap in the stack
(modified for kernel space #BP only)?

-- 
Josh