linux-kernel - Re: [patch 15/14] x86/dumpstack/64: Speedup in_exception

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]

Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:26:06 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 15/14] x86/dumpstack/64: Speedup in_exception_stack()

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >>> How about a much better fix: make the DB stack be the same size as all
> >>> the others and just have 4 of them (DB0, DB1, DB2, and DB3.  After all,
> >>> overflowing from one debug stack into another is just as much of a bug as
> >>> overflowing into a different IST stack.
> >> 
> >> That makes sense.
> > 
> > Except that we just have two not four.
> > 
> > It needs some tweaking of the ist_shift stuff in entry_64.S but that's not
> > rocket science. Famous last words....
> > 
> 
> The ist_shift mess should probably be in C, but that’s a big can of
> worms. That being said, why do we have it at all?  Once upon a time, we’d
> do ICEBP from user mode (or a legit breakpoint), then send a signal and
> hit a data breakpoint, and we’d recurse.  But we don’t run user debug
> handlers on the IST stack at all anymore.
>
> Maybe we can convince ourselves it’s safe?

Maybe. Need to think about it for a while.

Thanks,

	tglx