linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] objtool,x86_64,paravirt: Add pv

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, 3 Aug 2020 08:15:02 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, mbenes@...e.de,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] objtool,x86_64,paravirt: Add pv_ops[] support

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 7:33 AM <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
> Thomas wanted paramuck vs noinstr, here goes. Very rough, very nasty,
> mostly works.
>
> It requires call sites are the normal indirect call, and not mangled
> retpoison (slow_down_io() had those), it also requires pv_ops[]
> assignments are single instructions and not laundered through some
> pointless intermediate helper (hyperv).
>
> It doesn't warn when you get any of that wrong.
>
> But if you have it all lined up right, it will warn about noinstr
> violations due to paramuck:

I certainly agree that pv_ops is mucky, but could you expound on
precisely what this patch actually does?  On a very quick
read-through, I'm guessing you're complaining about any call to pv_ops
in a noinstr section?  But maybe this is only calls to pv_ops that
aren't themselves noinstr?