linux-kernel - Re: [patch V6 00/37] x86/entry: Rework leftovers and merge plan

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]

Message-ID: <20200523130836.GB2483@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Sat, 23 May 2020 15:08:36 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai+lkml@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Jason Chen CJ <jason.cj.chen@...el.com>,
        Zhao Yakui <yakui.zhao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch V6 00/37] x86/entry: Rework leftovers and merge plan

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:52:24AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I, who don't know how does the objtool handle it, am just curious.
> _begin() and _end() are symmetrical, which means if _end() (without nop)
> can escape, so can _begin() in a reverse way. For example:
> 
> noinstr void foo()
> {
>     instrumentation_begin();
>     do {
>             instrumentation_begin();
>             ...
>             instrumentation_end();
>     } while (cond);
>     bar();
>     instrumentation_end();
> }
> 
> Here, the first _begin() can be "dragged" into the do-while block.
> Expectedly, objtool validation should not complain here.
> 
> But objtool validation's not complaining means it can handle it
> magically correctly (by distinguishing how many _begin()s should
> be taken around the jmp target when jmp in a specific path), or
> handle it by not checking if all paths have the same count onto
> a jmp target (a little nervous to me), or other possible ways.

No, I tihnk you're right. It could be we never hit this particular
problem. Even the one described, where end leaks out, is quite rare. For
instance, the last one I debgged (that led to this patch) only showed
itself with gcc-9, but not with gcc-8 for example.

Anyway, if we ever find the above, I'll add the NOP to begin too.