linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/thread_info: introduce ->ftrace_int3

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <D5735AF7-D603-4B20-A3EE-B519044D1E5D@amacapital.net>
Date:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:08:34 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/thread_info: introduce ->ftrace_int3_stack member



> On Apr 28, 2019, at 10:51 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 10:41:10 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Note that at any given point
>>> in time, there can be at most four such call insn emulations pending:
>>> namely at most one per "process", "irq", "softirq" and "nmi" context.
>>> 
>> 
>> That’s quite an assumption. I think your list should also contain
>> exception, exceptions nested inside that exception, and machine
>> check, at the very least.  I’m also wondering why irq and softirq are
>> treated separately.
> 
> 4 has usually been the context count we choose. But I guess in theory,
> if we get exceptions then I could potentially be more.
> 
> As for irq vs softirq, an interrupt can preempt a softirq. Interrupts
> are enabled while softirqs are running. When sofirqs run, softirqs are
> disabled to prevent nested softirqs. But interrupts are enabled again,
> and another interrupt may come in while a softirq is executing.
> 
>> 
>> All this makes me think that one of the other solutions we came up
>> with last time we discussed this might be better.
> 
> +100
> 
> Perhaps adding another slot into pt_regs that gets used by int3 to
> store a slot to emulate a call on return?
> 
> 

That’s not totally nuts, although finding pt_regs isn’t entirely trivial.

I still think I prefer an approach where we just emulate the call directly.