linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/alternative: Use a single access in text

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: <d9b1c9b7-ae7b-80df-7b2f-19721f3460cf@akamai.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jan 2019 12:41:08 -0500
From:   Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.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>,
        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 5/6] x86/alternative: Use a single access in
 text_poke() where possible

On 1/11/19 11:57 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 05:46:36PM +0100, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/11/2019 04:28 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 01:10:52PM +0100, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
>>>> To avoid any issue with live patching the call instruction, what about
>>>> toggling between two call instructions: one would be the currently active
>>>> call, while the other would currently be inactive but to be used after a
>>>> change is made. You can safely patch the inactive call and then toggle
>>>> the call flow (using a jump label) between the active and inactive calls.
>>>>
>>>> So instead of having a single call instruction:
>>>>
>>>> 	call function
>>>>
>>>> You would have:
>>>>
>>>> 	STATIC_JUMP_IF_TRUE label, key
>>>> 	call function1
>>>> 	jmp done
>>>> label:
>>>> 	call function2
>>>> done:
>>>>
>>>> If the key is set so that function1 is currently called then you can
>>>> safely update the call instruction for function2. Once this is done,
>>>> just flip the key to make the function2 call active. On a next update,
>>>> you would, of course, have to switch and update the call for function1.
>>>
>>> What about the following race?
>>>
>>> CPU1						CPU2
>>> static key is false, doesn't jump
>>> task gets preempted before calling function1
>>> 						change static key to true
>>> 						start patching "call function1"
>>> task resumes, sees inconsistent call instruction
>>>
>>
>> If the function1 call is active then it won't be changed, you will change
>> function2. However, I presume you can still have a race but if the function
>> is changed twice before calling function1:
>>
>> CPU1						CPU2
>> static key is false, doesn't jump
>> task gets preempted before calling function1
>>                                                 -- first function change --
>>                                                 patch "call function2"
>>                                                 change static key to true
>>                                                 -- second function change --
>>                                                 start patching "call function1"
>> task resumes, sees inconsistent call instruction
>>
>> So right, that's a problem.
> 
> Right, that's what I meant to say :-)
> 

could you use something like synchronize_rcu_tasks() between successive
updates to guarantee nobody's stuck in the middle of the call
instruction update? Yes its really slow but the update path is slow anyways.

Thanks,

-Jason