linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] x86/cet/ibt: Add IBT legacy code bitmap setup function

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:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 13:58:01 -0700
From:   Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 03/14] x86/cet/ibt: Add IBT legacy code bitmap setup
 function

On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 13:43 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/10/19 1:27 PM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > > > If the loader cannot allocate a big bitmap to cover all 5-level
> > > > address space (the bitmap will be large), it can put all legacy lib's
> > > > at lower address.  We cannot do these easily in the kernel.
> > > 
> > > This is actually an argument to do it in the kernel.  The kernel can
> > > always allocate the virtual space however it wants, no matter how large.
> > >  If we hide the bitmap behind a kernel API then we can put it at high
> > > 5-level user addresses because we also don't have to worry about the
> > > high bits confusing userspace.
> > 
> > We actually tried this.  The kernel needs to reserve the bitmap space in the
> > beginning for every CET-enabled app, regardless of actual needs. 
> 
> I don't think this is a problem.  In fact, I think reserving the space
> is actually the only sane behavior.  If you don't reserve it, you
> fundamentally limit where future legacy instructions can go.
> 
> One idea is that we always size the bitmap for the 48-bit addressing
> systems.  Legacy code probably doesn't _need_ to go in the new address
> space, and if we do this we don't have to worry about the gigantic
> 57-bit address space bitmap.
> 
> > On each memory request, the kernel then must consider a percentage of
> > allocated space in its calculation, and on systems with less memory
> > this quickly becomes a problem.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here?  Are you referring to our
> overcommit limits?

Yes.