linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Static calls

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, 10 Jan 2019 10:44:01 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        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 Cartwright <julia@...com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Edward Cree <ecree@...arflare.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Static calls

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 01:21:00AM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 9, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > With this version, I stopped trying to use text_poke_bp(), and instead
> > went with a different approach: if the call site destination doesn't
> > cross a cacheline boundary, just do an atomic write.  Otherwise, keep
> > using the trampoline indefinitely.
> > 
> > NOTE: At least experimentally, the call destination writes seem to be
> > atomic with respect to instruction fetching.  On Nehalem I can easily
> > trigger crashes when writing a call destination across cachelines while
> > reading the instruction on other CPU; but I get no such crashes when
> > respecting cacheline boundaries.
> > 
> > BUT, the SDM doesn't document this approach, so it would be great if any
> > CPU people can confirm that it's safe!
> > 
> 
> I (still) think that having a compiler plugin can make things much cleaner
> (as done in [1]). The callers would not need to be changed, and the key can
> be provided through an attribute.
> 
> Using a plugin should also allow to use Steven’s proposal for doing
> text_poke() safely: by changing 'func()' into 'asm (“call func”)', as done
> by the plugin, you can be guaranteed that registers are clobbered. Then, you
> can store in the assembly block the return address in one of these
> registers.

I'm no GCC expert (why do I find myself saying this a lot lately?), but
this sounds to me like it could be tricky to get right.

I suppose you'd have to do it in an early pass, to allow GCC to clobber
the registers in a later pass.  So it would necessarily have side
effects, but I don't know what the risks are.

Would it work with more than 5 arguments, where args get passed on the
stack?

At the very least, it would (at least partially) defeat the point of the
callee-saved paravirt ops.

What if we just used a plugin in a simpler fashion -- to do call site
alignment, if necessary, to ensure the instruction doesn't cross
cacheline boundaries.  This could be done in a later pass, with no side
effects other than code layout.  And it would allow us to avoid
breakpoints altogether -- again, assuming somebody can verify that
intra-cacheline call destination writes are atomic with respect to
instruction decoder reads.

-- 
Josh