linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 34/56] x86/alternative: Save old bytes for alternatives

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: <5f1fa90d-5c84-43e6-a99e-ef4a215b5055@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 11:37:19 +0200
From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
To: "Kaplan, David" <David.Kaplan@....com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
 Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
 Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 34/56] x86/alternative: Save old bytes for
 alternatives



On 10/27/25 16:19, Kaplan, David wrote:
> [AMD Official Use Only - AMD Internal Distribution Only]
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@...e.com>
>> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 6:35 AM
>> To: Kaplan, David <David.Kaplan@....com>; Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>;
>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>; Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>; Peter
>> Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>; Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>; Pawan
>> Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>;
>> Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>; x86@...nel.org; H . Peter Anvin
>> <hpa@...or.com>
>> Cc: Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>; Boris Ostrovsky
>> <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 34/56] x86/alternative: Save old bytes for alternatives
>>
>> Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution
>> when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.
>>
>>
>> On 10/15/25 16:45, Kaplan, David wrote:
>>> [AMD Official Use Only - AMD Internal Distribution Only]
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2025 5:38 AM
>>>> To: Kaplan, David <David.Kaplan@....com>; Thomas Gleixner
>>>> <tglx@...utronix.de>; Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>; Peter Zijlstra
>>>> <peterz@...radead.org>; Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>; Pawan
>> Gupta
>>>> <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>; Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>;
>> Dave
>>>> Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>; x86@...nel.org; H . Peter Anvin
>>>> <hpa@...or.com>
>>>> Cc: Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>; Boris Ostrovsky
>>>> <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 34/56] x86/alternative: Save old bytes for alternatives
>>>>
>>>> On 13.10.25 16:34, David Kaplan wrote:
>>>>> Save the existing instruction bytes at each alternative site when patching.
>>>>> This is only done the first time, and these will be used later to help
>>>>> restore the code back to its original form.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Kaplan <david.kaplan@....com>
>>>>
>>>> Instead of saving the original instructions at runtime, why don't you
>>>> expand struct alt_instr to have an additional offset to a saved copy
>>>> of the original instruction, located in .altinstr_replacement?
>>>>
>>>> The new field should be guarded with #ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_MITIGATIONS,
>>>> of course, like the added handling in the ALTERNATIVE() macros.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's an interesting idea, I think that could work.  That would make the kernel
>> image on disk (slightly) larger though, as the original bytes will essentially be
>> duplicated (at the original location and in .altinstr_replacement).  I'm not sure which
>> is the better trade-off (kernel image bytes on disk vs runtime memory usage).
>> Although I think we're talking about a relatively small amount of memory regardless.
>> Most of the runtime overhead of dynamic mitigations comes from remembering the
>> call sites/returns.
>>
>> It's not just about memory usage per-se but also memory pressure from
>> allocation and the resulting fragmentation, though I'd think that
>> majority of the allocation will fit into kmalloc-32 bucket, still having
>> them as part of the kernel image eliminates the additional allocs.
> 
> I see.  Just to understand, the issue is more with the numerous small allocations right? (that is the kmalloc at each alt_site)  And less about the single large allocation of the array?

Yep, do you have some statistics how many allocs have to be done?

> 
> I'm just thinking about the retpoline_site handling too.  That one also has a large dynamically allocated array, although it does not have numerous small allocations because the size of each instruction is constrained to at most 6 bytes.


> 
> Thanks
> --David Kaplan
> 
>