linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm64/entry.S: check for stack overflow in el1 case only

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20210120110803.GB19241@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 11:08:03 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
        broonie@...nel.org, vincenzo.frascino@....com,
        samitolvanen@...gle.com, ardb@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        v.narang@...sung.com, a.sahrawat@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arm64/entry.S: check for stack overflow in el1 case
 only

On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 11:29:03AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 02:45:31PM +0530, Maninder Singh wrote:
> > current code checks for sp bit flip in all exceptions,
> > but only el1 exceptions requires this. el0 can not enter
> > into stack overflow case directly.
> > 
> > it will improve performance for el0 exceptions and interrupts.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Vaneet Narang <v.narang@...sung.com>
> 
> I did consider doing this at the time Ard and I wrote the overflow
> detection, but there was no measureable impact on the workloads that I
> tested, and it seemed worthwhile to have this as a sanity check in case
> the SP was somehow corrupted (and to avoid any surprizing differences
> between the EL0 and EL1 entry paths).
> 
> When you say "it will improve performance for el0 exceptions and
> interrupts", do you have a workload where this has a measureable impact,
> or was this found by inspection? Unless this is causing a real issue,
> I'd prefer to leave it as-is for now.

Maninder -- please could you follow up on Mark's question?

Will