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: <CALCETrW1ju40hFrM3sr21tDTZ-m1=swHfD2cMiyYFJkgbb3cug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:42:26 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        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 12:24 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > 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)?
>

I tend to prefer a nice local hack like mine over a hack that further
complicates the entry in general.  This is not to say I'm thrilled by
my idea either.