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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200615161713.GH2554@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 15 Jun 2020 18:17:13 +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 03:08:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

FYI, I just found one, I'll be making instrumentation_begin() a NOP
too.