linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion

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, 3 Jan 2019 14:31:09 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/6] x86: dynamic indirect branch promotion

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 06:30:08PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:53:06PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >>> On Dec 31, 2018, at 11:51 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 11:20 PM Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
> >>>> This is a revised version of optpolines (formerly named retpolines) for
> >>>> dynamic indirect branch promotion in order to reduce retpoline overheads
> >>>> [1].
> >>> 
> >>> Some of your changelogs still call them "relpolines".
> >>> 
> >>> I have a crazy suggestion: maybe don't give them a cute name at all?
> >>> Where it's actually necessary to name them (like in a config option),
> >>> use a description like CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEVIRTUALIZATION or
> >>> CONFIG_PATCH_INDIRECT_CALLS or something.
> > 
> > Cute or not, naming is important.
> > 
> > If you want a description instead of a name, it will be a challenge to
> > describe it in 2-3 words.
> > 
> > I have no idea what "dynamic devirtualization" means.
> > 
> > "Patch indirect calls" doesn't fully describe it either (and could be
> > easily confused with static calls and some other approaches).
> > 
> >> I’m totally fine with that (don’t turn me into a "marketing” guy). It was
> >> just a way to refer to the mechanism. I need more feedback about the more
> >> fundamental issues to go on.
> > 
> > Naming isn't marketing.  It's a real issue: it affects both usability
> > and code readability.
> 
> Well, allow me to be on the fence not this one.
> 
> I look for the path of least resistance. I think it would be easiest if I
> first manage to make Josh’s static calls to be less intrusive. For that, I
> try to add in the GCC plugin an attribute to annotate the function pointers
> whose calls should be promoted. However, I don’t manage to get the
> declaration from the call instruction's rtx. If anyone has a pointer on how
> it can be done, that’s would be very helpful.

Ok.  FYI, I'll be posting v3 in the next few days or so.

-- 
Josh