linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

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:   Thu, 27 Jun 2019 09:12:50 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Shawn Landden <shawn@....icu>,
        Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@...il.com>,
        Chandler Carruth <chandlerc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Mark expected switch fall-throughs

On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:14:05PM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 1:49 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:15:57AM -0700, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> >
> > > Unreleased versions of Clang built from source can;
> >
> > I've bad experiences with using unreleased compilers; life is too short.
> 
> Yes; but before release is when they need the help the most in order
> for testing to find regressions.
> 
> >
> > > We're currently planning multiple output constraint support w/ asm
> > > goto, and have recently implemented things like
> > > __GCC_ASM_FLAG_OUTPUTS__.
> >
> > That's good to hear.
> >
> > > If there's other features that we should
> > > start implementing, please let us know.
> >
> > If you've got any ideas on how to make this:
> >
> >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190621120923.GT3463@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> >
> > work, that'd be nice. Basically I wanted the asm goto to emit a 2 or 5
> > byte JMP/NOP depending on the displacement size. We can trivially get
> > JMP right by using:
> >
> >         jmp \l_yes
> >
> > and letting the assembler sort it, but getting the NOP right has so far
> > eluded me:
> >
> > .if \l_yes - (. + 2) < 127
> >         .byte 0x66, 0x90
> > .else
> >         .byte STATIC_KEY_INIT_NOP
> > .endif
> >
> > doesn't work. We can ofcourse unconditionally emit the JMP and then
> > rewrite the binary afterward, and replace the emitted jumps with the
> > right size NOP, but that's a bit yuck.
> >
> > Once it emits the variable size instruction consistently, we can update
> > the patching side to use the same condition to select the new
> > instruction (and fix objtool).
> 
> Not sure; the assembler directives and their requirements aren't
> something I'm too familiar with.

Josh came up with the following:

+		/* If the jump target is close, do a 2-byte nop: */
+		".skip -(%l[l_yes] - 1b <= 126), 0x66\n"
+		".skip -(%l[l_yes] - 1b <= 126), 0x90\n"
+		/* Otherwise do a 5-byte nop: */
+		".skip -(%l[l_yes] - 1b > 126), 0x0f\n"
+		".skip -(%l[l_yes] - 1b > 126), 0x1f\n"
+		".skip -(%l[l_yes] - 1b > 126), 0x44\n"
+		".skip -(%l[l_yes] - 1b > 126), 0x00\n"
+		".skip -(%l[l_yes] - 1b > 126), 0x00\n"

Which is a wonderfully gruesome hack :-) So I'll be playing with that
for a bit.