linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] bpf,x86: Respect X86_FEATURE

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: <20211021233852.gbkyl7wpunyyq4y5@treble>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 16:38:52 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/14] bpf,x86: Respect X86_FEATURE_RETPOLINE*

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 04:24:33PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 3:40 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:03:33AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> > > > I nicked it from emit_bpf_tail_call() in the 32bit jit :-) It seemed a
> > > > lot more robust than the 64bit one and I couldn't figure out why the
> > > > difference.
> > >
> > > Interesting. Daniel will recognize that trick then :)
> >
> > > > Is there concurrency on the jit?
> > >
> > > The JIT of different progs can happen in parallel.
> >
> > In that case I don't think the patch is safe. I'll see if I can find a
> > variant that doesn't use static storage.
> 
> The variable can only change from one fixed value to another fixed value.
> Different threads will compute the same value. So I think it's safe
> as-is. READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE won't hurt though.

But the size of the generated code differs based on the
emit_bpf_tail_call_indirect() args: 'callee_regs_used' and
'stack_depth'.  So the fixed value can change.

-- 
Josh