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]

Message-ID: <E2076BDA-FED4-449F-805F-F255755C78A2@zytor.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Jan 2019 16:36:38 -0800
From:   hpa@...or.com
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        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>,
        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 January 11, 2019 11:34:34 AM PST, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 11:24 AM <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>
>> I still don't see why can't simply spin in the #BP handler until the
>patch is complete.
>
>So here's at least one problem:
>
>text_poke_bp()
>  text_poke(addr, &int3, sizeof(int3));
>   *interrupt*
>      interrupt has a static call
>        *BP*
>          poke_int3_handler
>             *BOOM*
>
>Note how at BOOM we cannot just spin (or return) to wait for the
>'int3' to be switched back. Becuase it never will. Because we are
>interrupting the thing that would do that switch-back.
>
>So we'd have to do the 'text_poke_bp()' sequence with interrupts
>disabled. Which we can't do right now at least, because part of that
>sequence involves that on_each_cpu(do_sync_core) thing, which needs
>interrupts enabled.
>
>See?
>
>Or am I missing something?
>
>            Linus

Ok, I was thinking far more about spinning with an IRET and letting the exception be delivered. Patching with interrupts disabled have other problems... 
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.