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, 1 Mar 2019 15:38:00 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>, valentin.schneider@....com,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] i915,uaccess: Fix redundant CLAC

On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 01:57:18PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 01:27:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > arch/x86/lib/usercopy_64.o: warning: objtool: .altinstr_replacement+0x30: redundant UACCESS disable
> 
> > The usercopy one is difficult, that's copy_user_handle_tail(), it is
> > buggered though, because that lacks notrace and thus has a __fentry__
> > call in.
> > 
> > Also, afaict all exception jumps into copy_user_handle_tail() will have
> > AC=1, but the __{get,put}_user_nocheck() things do STAC/CLAC all over
> > again.
> > 
> > So what do we do? Annotate that we start with AC=1 and then immediately
> > do the clac, and then let __{get,put}_user_nocheck() do their own thing?
> > or make it use the unsafe stuff?
> 
> Or.. we move the thing to assembly. Of course, I suck at (writing) asm,
> so the below is probably broken in various ways.

The advantage is that it now all lives in the same .o file and objtool
can actually follow and find the complete control flow.

I've made it ENDPROC() such that it becomes STT_FUNC and objtool does
all the normal things. I've also moved the ALIGN_DESTINATION macro into
the .S file.

Andy, do we have a sensible self-test for this path?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists