linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 3/8] x86/entry: Move PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS out of error

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: <YmmBHABKMk7Ctx46@zn.tnic>
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 19:45:00 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/8] x86/entry: Move PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS out of
 error_entry()

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 10:10:50PM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>
> 
> The macro idtentry calls error_entry() unconditionally even on XENPV.
> But the code XENPV needs in error_entry() is PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS only.
> And error_entry() also calls sync_regs() which has to deal with the
> case of XENPV via an extra branch so that it doesn't copy the pt_regs.

What extra branch?

Do you mean the

	if (regs != eregs)

test in sync_regs()?

I'm confused. Are you, per chance, aiming to optimize XENPV here or
what's up?

> And PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS in error_entry() makes the stack not return to
> its original place when the function returns, which means it is not
> possible to convert it to a C function.
> 
> Move PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS out of error_entry(), add a function to wrap
> PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS and call it before error_entry().
> 
> The new function call adds two instructions (CALL and RET) for every
> interrupt or exception.

Not only - it pushes all the regs in PUSH_AND_CLEAR_REGS too. I don't
understand why that matters here? It was done in error_entry anyway.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette