linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/14 v2] function_graph: Allow multiple users to attach to function graph

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]

Date:   Fri, 24 May 2019 14:27:24 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 03/14 v2] function_graph: Allow multiple users to
 attach to function graph

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 08:12:19AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2019 13:26:08 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > But but but but.. why not add all the required bits to the shadow stack
> > in the first place and do away with the array entirely?
> 
> What required bits would that be? The pointer to the fgraph_ops,
> because we need that to pass to the calling function.

I was thinking a smaller structure comprising of {func,callback}, which
you pop, if func matches, run callback.

> > So on ret, just keep POP'ing until either the stack is empty or the
> > entry is for another function.
> 
> When we hit a fgraph_ops, how do we know if it was freed or not? We
> can't just blindly reference it.
> 
> The idea of the array, is that we can maintain state in a single
> location of when the fgraph_ops is freed. If we return from a function,
> we have an index and a counter, and if the counter doesn't match with
> what's in the array, then we know that the fgraph_ops is no longer
> around and we just drop it.
> 
> The reason for the array, is to keep track of if the fgraph_ops has
> been freed or not. Otherwise, when we unregister the fgraph_ops, we
> would need to search all shadow stacks, looking for it to unreference
> it.
> 
> Believe me, I rather not have that array, but I couldn't come up with a
> better solution to handle freeing of fgraph_ops.

The trivial answer would be to refcount the thing, but can't we make
rcu_tasks do this?

And delay the unreg until all active users are gone -- who gives a crap
that can take a while.