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  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, 11 Jan 2019 15:41:22 -0600
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.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 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 Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 09:36:59PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2019, at 1:22 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:46:39PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 12:31 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>> I was referring to the fact that a single static call key update will
> >>> usually result in patching multiple call sites.  But you're right, it's
> >>> only 1-2 trampolines per text_poke_bp() invocation.  Though eventually
> >>> we may want to batch all the writes like what Daniel has proposed for
> >>> jump labels, to reduce IPIs.
> >> 
> >> Yeah, my suggestion doesn't allow for batching, since it would
> >> basically generate one trampoline for every rewritten instruction.
> > 
> > As Andy said, I think batching would still be possible, it's just that
> > we'd have to create multiple trampolines at a time.
> > 
> > Or... we could do a hybrid approach: create a single custom trampoline
> > which has the call destination patched in, but put the return address in
> > %rax -- which is always clobbered, even for callee-saved PV ops.  Like:
> > 
> > trampoline:
> > 	push %rax
> > 	call patched-dest
> > 
> > That way the batching could be done with a single trampoline
> > (particularly if using rcu-sched to avoid the sti hack).
> 
> I don’t see RCU-sched solves the problem if you don’t disable preemption. On
> a fully preemptable kernel, you can get preempted between the push and the
> call (jmp) or before the push. RCU-sched can then finish, and the preempted
> task may later jump to a wrong patched-dest.

Argh, I misspoke about RCU-sched.  Words are hard.

I meant synchronize_rcu_tasks(), which is a completely different animal.
My understanding is that it waits until all runnable tasks (including
preempted tasks) have gotten a chance to run.

-- 
Josh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists