linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules loading

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: <20190307170629.GG26566@zn.tnic>
Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 18:06:29 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     hpa@...or.com
Cc:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Damian Tometzki <linux_dti@...oud.com>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>,
        LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Dock, Deneen T" <deneen.t.dock@...el.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/20] x86: avoid W^X being broken during modules
 loading

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 08:53:34AM -0800, hpa@...or.com wrote:
> If we *do*, what is the issue here? Although boot_cpu_has() isn't
> slow (it should in general be possible to reduce to one testb
> instruction followed by a conditional jump) it seems that "avoiding an
> alternatives slot" *should* be a *very* weak reason, and seems to me
> to look like papering over some other problem.

Forget the current thread: this is simply trying to document when to use
static_cpu_has() and when to use boot_cpu_has(). I get asked about it at
least once a month.

And then it is replacing clear slow paths using static_cpu_has() with
boot_cpu_has() because there's purely no need to patch there. And having
a RIP-relative MOV and a JMP is good enough for slow paths.

Makes sense?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.