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: <20181129221745.jxxqjsocergfzrb4@treble>
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:17:45 -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 02:24:52PM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 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.

BTW, this means that if any of a trampoline's callers crosses cache
boundaries then we won't be able to poison the trampoline.  Which is
kind of sad.

-- 
Josh