* Denys Vlasenko <dvlas...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 01:14 PM, Brian Gerst wrote:
> >>>> So I merged this as it's an obvious bugfix, but in hindsight I'm
> >>>> really uneasy about the whole opportunistic SYSRET concept: it appears
> >>>> that the chance that %rcx matches return-%rip is astronomical - this
> >>>> is why this bug wasn't noticed live so far.
> >>>>
> >>>> So should we really be doing this?
> >>>
> >>> Andy does this not for the off-chance that userspace's RCX is equal
> >>> to return address and R11 == RFLAGS. The chances of that are
> >>> astronomically small.
> >>>
> >>> This code path triggers when ptrace/audit/seccomp is active. Instead
> >>> of torturing ourselves trying to not divert into IRET return, now
> >>> code is steered that way. But then immediately before actual IRET,
> >>> we check again: "do we really need IRET?" IOW "did ptrace really
> >>> touch pt_regs->ss? ->flags? ->rip? ->rcx?" which in vast majority of
> >>> cases will not be true.
> >>
> >> I keep forgetting about that, my test systems have the audit muck
> >> turned off ;-)
> >>
> >> Fair enough - and it's sensible to share the IRET path between
> >> interrupts and complex-return system calls, even though the check
> >> is unnecessary overhead for the pure interrupt return path...
> >
> >
> > Maybe we could reintroduce TIF_IRET for this purpose instead of
> > (ab)using TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME. Then we would only do the opportunistic
> > check for those cases (ptrace, audit, exec, sigreturn, etc.), and skip
> > it for interrupts.
>
> The very first check in the existing code, pt_regs->cx ==
> pt_regs->ip, will fail for interrupt returns.
>
> You hardly can save anything by placing a (ti->flags &
> TIF_TRY_SYSRET) check in front of it, it's almost as expensive.
Well, what I was thinking of was to have a pure irq (well, async
context) return path, not shared with the weird-syscall-IRET return
path at all ...
It would be open coded, not obfuscated via macros.
That way AFAICS the upsides are:
- it's easier to read (and maintain) what goes on in which case.
'*intr*' labels would truly identify interrupt return related
processing, for a change!
- we can optimize in a more directed fashion - like here
... while the downsides are:
- more code
- a (small) chance of a fix going to one path while not the other.
How much extra code would it be?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
