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:   Fri, 3 May 2019 15:55:12 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <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>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions



> On May 3, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 12:24 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>> 
>> The problem with this approach is that it would require doing the same
>> for x86_64, as the int3 C code is the same for both. And that may be a
>> bit more difficult on the x86_64 side because it's all done with a
>> simple flag in the idtentry macro to add the gap.
> 
> That argument is weakened by the fact that we have to do _other_
> things differently on 32-bit and 64-bit anyway.
> 
> So we might as well have a "on 32-bit, the call emulation needs to
> move the pt_regs to make space" special case in the call emulation
> code. It's very easy to explain why.
> 
> And then we'd limit the special case to where it matters (with a big
> comment about what's going on), rather than adding random special case
> handling to random _other_ places.

If we do this, it should IMO look like this:

struct pt_regs *change_kernel_stack_pointer(struct pt_regs *, unsigned long new_sp);

And that helper should be used on both variants.

But I think this will end up worse than the version where the entry code fixes it up.  This is because, if the C code moves pt_regs, then we need some way to pass the new pointer back to the asm.  We will also have a much harder time with runtime sanity checks.  In the model where the C code merely updates regs->sp, it’s very easy to compare sp and &regs to check for overlap, but it’s much harder to tell whether memmoveing it is going to overwrite something important.  And we have to worry about whether there’s some other code that assumes that pt_regs stays put.

So my intuition is that the pure asm fixup will result is more maintainable code.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists