linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 5/9] x86/alternative: Split text_poke

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: <20190207191552.0782a29d@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Thu, 7 Feb 2019 19:15:52 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Scott Wood <swood@...hat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 5/9] x86/alternative: Split text_poke_bp() into tree
 steps

On Mon,  4 Feb 2019 20:58:58 +0100
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com> wrote:

>  
> +static void text_poke_bp_set_handler(void *addr, void *handler,
> +				     unsigned char int3)
> +{
> +	bp_int3_handler = handler;
> +	bp_int3_addr = (u8 *)addr + sizeof(int3);
> +	text_poke(addr, &int3, sizeof(int3));
> +}
> +

> +
> +static void patch_first_byte(void *addr, const void *opcode, unsigned char int3)
> +{
> +	/* patch the first byte */
> +	text_poke(addr, opcode, sizeof(int3));
> +}

Hmm, perhaps get rid of the first function entirely, and just do...
(although why have the "int3" here anyway?)

> +
>  /**
>   * text_poke_bp() -- update instructions on live kernel on SMP
>   * @addr:	address to patch
> @@ -791,27 +814,21 @@ void *text_poke_bp(void *addr, const void *opcode, size_t len, void *handler)
>  {
>  	unsigned char int3 = 0xcc;
>  
> -	bp_int3_handler = handler;
> -	bp_int3_addr = (u8 *)addr + sizeof(int3);
> -	bp_patching_in_progress = true;
> -
>  	lockdep_assert_held(&text_mutex);
>  
> +	bp_patching_in_progress = true;
>  	/*
>  	 * Corresponding read barrier in int3 notifier for making sure the
>  	 * in_progress and handler are correctly ordered wrt. patching.
>  	 */
>  	smp_wmb();
>  
> -	text_poke(addr, &int3, sizeof(int3));
> +	text_poke_bp_set_handler(addr, handler, int3);

	patch_first_byte(addr, &int3, int3);

Which could be just:

	patch_first_byte(addr, &int3);

if we remove passing in int3 (for its size?).

-- Steve

>  
>  	on_each_cpu(do_sync_core, NULL, 1);
>  
>  	if (len - sizeof(int3) > 0) {
> -		/* patch all but the first byte */
> -		text_poke((char *)addr + sizeof(int3),
> -			  (const char *) opcode + sizeof(int3),
> -			  len - sizeof(int3));
> +		patch_all_but_first_byte(addr, opcode, len, int3);
>  		/*
>  		 * According to Intel, this core syncing is very likely
>  		 * not necessary and we'd be safe even without it. But
> @@ -820,8 +837,7 @@ void *text_poke_bp(void *addr, const void *opcode, size_t len, void *handler)
>  		on_each_cpu(do_sync_core, NULL, 1);
>  	}
>  
> -	/* patch the first byte */
> -	text_poke(addr, opcode, sizeof(int3));
> +	patch_first_byte(addr, opcode, int3);
>  
>  	on_each_cpu(do_sync_core, NULL, 1);
>  	/*