lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 5/6] x86/alternative: Use a single access in text_poke() where possible
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:04:28AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:57:57PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:42:57 -0800
> > Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:32:43PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 11:20:04 -0600
> > > > Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > While I can't find a reason for hypervisors to emulate this instruction,
> > > > > > smarter people might find ways to turn it into a security exploit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting point... but I wonder if it's a realistic concern. BTW,
> > > > > text_poke_bp() also relies on undocumented behavior.
> > > >
> > > > But we did get an official OK from Intel that it will work. Took a bit
> > > > of arm twisting to get them to do so, but they did. And it really is
> > > > pretty robust.
> > >
> > > Did we (they?) list any caveats for this behavior? E.g. I'm fairly
> > > certain atomicity guarantees go out the window if WC memtype is used.
> >
> > Note, the text_poke_bp() process was this: (nothing to do with atomic
> > guarantees)
> >
> > add breakpoint (one byte) to instruction.
> >
> > Sync all cores (send an IPI to each one).
> >
> > change the back half of the instruction (the rest of the instruction
> > after the breakpoint).
> >
> > Sync all cores
> >
> > Remove the breakpoint with the new byte of the new instruction.
> >
> >
> > What atomicity guarantee does the above require?
>
> I was asking in the context of static calls. My understanding is that
> the write to change the imm32 of the CALL needs to be atomic from a
> code fetch perspective so that we don't jump to a junk address.
>
> Or were you saying that Intel gave an official OK on text_poke_bp()?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he was saying that.

Whose arms can we twist for finding out about static calls? :-)

--
Josh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-10 19:22    [W:0.082 / U:51.468 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site