[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <249CA966-9EFF-4687-8BC9-9364EDD51388@amacapital.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 13:56:31 -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 12:43 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 11:08:34 -0700
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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 meant on the int3 handler (which stores the pt_regs).
But that’s below the stub’s RSP, so it’s toast if another interrupt happens. Or am I misunderstanding you?
>
>>
>> I still think I prefer an approach where we just emulate the call directly.
>
> Then, on the return of int3, if there's anything in that slot, then we
> could possibly shift the exception handler frame (that was added by the
> hardware), insert the slot data into the top of the stack, and then
> call iret (which the int3 handler, would add the return ip to be the
> function being called), which would in essence emulate the call directly.
Oh, I get it.
I liked Josh’s old proposal of unconditionally shifting the #BP frame 8 bytes better. It will be interesting when kernel shadow stacks are thrown in the mix, but that’s a problem for another day.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists