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  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:   Tue, 15 Dec 2020 18:09:02 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3.1] entry: Pass irqentry_state_t by reference

On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 5:32 PM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 02:14:28PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:10 PM <ira.weiny@...el.com> wrote:

> > IOW we have:
> >
> > struct extended_pt_regs {
> >   bool rcu_whatever;
> >   other generic fields here;
> >   struct arch_extended_pt_regs arch_regs;
> >   struct pt_regs regs;
> > };
> >
> > and arch_extended_pt_regs has unsigned long pks;
> >
> > and instead of passing a pointer to irqentry_state_t to the generic
> > entry/exit code, we just pass a pt_regs pointer.  And we have a little
> > accessor like:
> >
> > struct extended_pt_regs *extended_regs(struct pt_regs *) { return
> > container_of(...); }
> >
> > And we tell eBPF that extended_pt_regs is NOT ABI, and we will change
> > it whenever we feel like just to keep you on your toes, thank you very
> > much.
> >
> > Does this seem reasonable?
>
> Conceptually yes.  But I'm failing to see how this implementation can be made
> generic for the generic fields.  The pks fields, assuming they stay x86
> specific, would be reasonable to add in PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS.  But the
> rcu/lockdep field is generic.  Wouldn't we have to modify every architecture to
> add space for the rcu/lockdep bool?
>
> If not, where is a generic place that could be done?  Basically I'm missing how
> the effective stack structure can look like this:
>
> > struct extended_pt_regs {
> >   bool rcu_whatever;
> >   other generic fields here;
> >   struct arch_extended_pt_regs arch_regs;
> >   struct pt_regs regs;
> > };
>
> It seems more reasonable to make it look like:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SUPERVISOR_PKEYS
> struct extended_pt_regs {
>         unsigned long pkrs;
>         struct pt_regs regs;
> };
> #endif
>
> And leave the rcu/lockdep bool passed by value as before (still in C).

We could certainly do this, but we could also allocate some generic
space.  PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS would get an extra instruction like:

subq %rsp, $GENERIC_PTREGS_SIZE

or however this should be written.  That field would be defined in
asm-offsets.c.  And yes, all the generic-entry architectures would
need to get onboard.

If we wanted to be fancy, we could split the generic area into
initialize-to-zero and uninitialized for debugging purposes, but that
might be more complication than is worthwhile.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists