[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202002091742.7B1E6BF19@keescook>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2020 17:43:40 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/11] x86: make sure _etext includes function
sections
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:24:23AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 12:02:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Also, in the shiny new era of
> > Intel-CPUs-can’t-handle-Jcc-spanning-a-cacheline, function alignment
> > may actually matter.
>
> *groan*, indeed. I just went and looked that up. I missed this one in
> all the other fuss :/
>
> So per:
>
> https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/processors/mitigations-jump-conditional-code-erratum.pdf
>
> the toolchain mitigations only work if the offset in the ifetch window
> (32 bytes) is preserved. Which seems to suggest we ought to align all
> functions to 32byte before randomizing it, otherwise we're almost
> guaranteed to change this offset by the act of randomizing.
Wheee! This sounds like in needs to be fixed generally, yes? (And I see
"FUNCTION_ALIGN" macro is currently 16 bytes...
--
Kees Cook
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.
