lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/6] Static calls
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 3:02 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:52 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Right, emulating a call instruction from the #BP handler is ugly,
> > because you have to somehow grow the stack to make room for the return
> > address. Personally I liked the idea of shifting the iret frame by 16
> > bytes in the #DB entry code, but others hated it.
>
> Yeah, I hated it.
>
> But I'm starting to think it's the simplest solution.
>
> So still not loving it, but all the other models have had huge issues too.
>

Putting my maintainer hat on:

I'm okay-ish with shifting the stack by 16 bytes. If this is done, I
want an assertion in do_int3() or wherever the fixup happens that the
write isn't overlapping pt_regs (which is easy to implement because
that code has the relevant pt_regs pointer). And I want some code
that explicitly triggers the fixup when a CONFIG_DEBUG_ENTRY=y or
similar kernel is built so that this whole mess actually gets
exercised. Because the fixup only happens when a
really-quite-improbable race gets hit, and the issues depend on stack
alignment, which is presumably why Josh was able to submit a buggy
series without noticing.

BUT: this is going to be utterly gross whenever anyone tries to
implement shadow stacks for the kernel, and we might need to switch to
a longjmp-like approach if that happens.

--Andy

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-11 01:56    [W:0.095 / U:21.716 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site