[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJcbSZE+TiY2whT94WqCJNXzR=2ATOHcQ10H5RqBZA1j=k1VHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 07:20:38 -0700
From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>, Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Peter Foley <pefoley2@...oley.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 12:56 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> > Do these changes get us closer to being able to build the kernel as truly
>> > position independent, i.e. to place it anywhere in the valid x86-64 address
>> > space? Or any other advantages?
>>
>> Yes, PIE allows us to put the kernel anywhere in memory. It will allow us to
>> have a full randomized address space where position and order of sections are
>> completely random. There is still some work to get there but being able to build
>> a PIE kernel is a significant step.
>
> So I _really_ dislike the whole PIE approach, because of the huge slowdown:
>
> +config RANDOMIZE_BASE_LARGE
> + bool "Increase the randomization range of the kernel image"
> + depends on X86_64 && RANDOMIZE_BASE
> + select X86_PIE
> + select X86_MODULE_PLTS if MODULES
> + default n
> + ---help---
> + Build the kernel as a Position Independent Executable (PIE) and
> + increase the available randomization range from 1GB to 3GB.
> +
> + This option impacts performance on kernel CPU intensive workloads up
> + to 10% due to PIE generated code. Impact on user-mode processes and
> + typical usage would be significantly less (0.50% when you build the
> + kernel).
> +
> + The kernel and modules will generate slightly more assembly (1 to 2%
> + increase on the .text sections). The vmlinux binary will be
> + significantly smaller due to less relocations.
>
> To put 10% kernel overhead into perspective: enabling this option wipes out about
> 5-10 years worth of painstaking optimizations we've done to keep the kernel fast
> ... (!!)
Note that 10% is the high-bound of a CPU intensive workload.
>
> I think the fundamental flaw is the assumption that we need a PIE executable to
> have a freely relocatable kernel on 64-bit CPUs.
>
> Have you considered a kernel with -mcmodel=small (or medium) instead of -fpie
> -mcmodel=large? We can pick a random 2GB window in the (non-kernel) canonical
> x86-64 address space to randomize the location of kernel text. The location of
> modules can be further randomized within that 2GB window.
-model=small/medium assume you are on the low 32-bit. It generates
instructions where the virtual addresses have the high 32-bit to be
zero.
I am going to start doing performance testing on -mcmodel=large to see
if it is faster than -fPIE.
>
> It should have far less performance impact than the register-losing and
> overhead-inducing -fpie / -mcmodel=large (for modules) execution models.
>
> My quick guess is tha the performance impact might be close to zero in fact.
If mcmodel=small/medium was possible for kernel, I don't think it
would have less performance impact than mcmodel=large. It would still
need to set the high 32-bit to be a static value, only the relocation
would be a different size.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
--
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
