linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: implement ftrace with regs

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:   Fri, 4 Jan 2019 13:06:48 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] arm64: implement ftrace with regs

On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 17:50:18 +0000
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:

> At Linux Plumbers, I had a conversation with Steve Rostedt, and we came
> to the conclusion that (withut heavyweight synchronization) patching two
> NOPs at runtime isn't safe, since a CPU might have executed the first
> NOP as a NOP before another CPU patches both instructions. So a CPU
> might execute:
> 
> 	NOP
> 	BL	ftrace_regs_caller
> 
> ... rather than the expected:
> 
> 	MOV	X9, X30
> 	BL	ftrace_regs_caller
> 
> ... and therefore X9 contains some UNKNOWN value, rather than the
> original LR value.
> 
> I wonder if we could solve that by patching the kernel at build-time, to
> add the MOV X9, X30 in place of the first NOP. If we were to do that, we
> could also update the addresses to pooint at the second NOP, simplifying
> the changes to the runtime code.

You can also patch it at boot up when there's only one CPU running, and
interrupts are disabled.

-- Steve