[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <608558890.3157.1554911260089.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 11:47:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
carlos <carlos@...hat.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: rseq/x86: choosing rseq code signature
----- On Apr 10, 2019, at 2:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@...radead.org wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 04:43:42PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * RSEQ_SIG is used with the following privileged instructions, which trap in
>> user-space:
>> + * x86-32: 0f 01 3d 53 30 05 53 invlpg 0x53053053
>> + * x86-64: 0f 01 3d 53 30 05 53 invlpg 0x53053053(%rip)
>> + */
>
> Right, and the alternative is: 0f b9 3d $SIG, which decodes to:
>
> UD1 $SIG(%rip),%edi
>
> which will trap unconditionally. The only problem is that gas will not
> actually assemble it, but since we're .byte coding it, it doesn't
> matter.
>
> UD1 is specified by both AMD and Intel to take a ModR/M, unlike UD0
> where they disagree on the ModR/M.
UD1 is even better from a code emulator perspective. It won't have to
try to emulate invlpg if it sees it.
Byte coding UD1 as your example above gives the following objdump output,
is it expected ?
objdump --version
GNU objdump (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.28
x86-32:
14: 0f b9 ud1
16: 3d 53 30 05 53 cmp $0x53053053,%eax
x86-64:
b: 0f b9 ud1
d: 3d 53 30 05 53 cmp $0x53053053,%eax
Thanks!
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists