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  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]
Date:   Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:23:43 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 02/20] zinc: introduce minimal cryptography library


> On Sep 20, 2018, at 8:12 PM, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 02:11:43AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
>> Hey Arnd,
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 6:02 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>>> Right, if you hit a stack requirement like this, it's usually the compiler
>>> doing something bad, not just using too much stack but also generating
>>> rather slow object code in the process. It's better to fix the bug by
>>> optimizing the code to not spill registers to the stack.
>>> 
>>> In the long run, I'd like to reduce the stack frame size further, so
>>> best assume that anything over 1024 bytes (on 32-bit) or 1280 bytes
>>> (on 64-bit) is a bug in the code, and stay below that.
>>> 
>>> For prototyping, you can just mark the broken functions individually
>>> by setting the warning limit for a specific function that is known to
>>> be misoptimized by the compiler (with a comment about which compiler
>>> and architectures are affected), but not override the limit for the
>>> entire file.
>> 
>> Thanks for the explanation. Fortunately in my case, the issues were
>> trivially fixable to get it under 1024/1280. (By the way, why does
>> 64-bit have a slightly larger stack frame? To account for 32 pointers
>> taking double the space or something?) That will be rectified in v6.
> 
> Hi Jason
> 
> Do you any stack usage information?
> 
> A VPN can be at the bottom of some deep stack calls. Swap on NFS over
> the VPN? If you have one frame of 1K, you might be O.K. But if you
> have a few of these, i can see there might be issues of overflowing
> the stack.
> 
>  

At the risk on suggesting something awful: on x86_64, since we turn preemption off for simd, it wouldn’t be *completely* insane to do the crypto on the irq stack. It would look like:

kernel_fpu_call(func, arg);

And this helper would disable preemption, enable FPU, switch to the irq stack, call func(arg), disable FPU, enable preemption, and return. And we can have large IRQ stacks.

I refuse to touch this with a ten-foot pole until the lazy FPU restore patches land.

All that being said, why are these frames so large?  It sounds like something may be spilling that ought not to.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists