linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/retpoline,kprobes: Avoid treating rethunk as an indirect jump

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:   Wed, 5 Jul 2023 10:58:57 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        samitolvanen@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/retpoline,kprobes: Avoid treating rethunk as an
 indirect jump

On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 10:15:47AM +0200, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> Functions can_optimize() and insn_is_indirect_jump() consider jumps to
> the range [__indirect_thunk_start, __indirect_thunk_end] as indirect
> jumps and prevent use of optprobes in functions containing them.

Why ?!? I mean, doing an opt-probe of an indirect jump/call instruction
itself doesn't really make sense and I can see why you'd want to not do
that. But why disallow an opt-probe if there's one in the function as a
whole, but not the probe target?