|
Message-ID: <CAJcbSZHBB1u2Vq0jZKsmd0UcRj=aichxTtbGvbWgf8-g8WPa7w@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 11:19:44 -0800 From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Kristen Carlson Accardi <kristen@...ux.intel.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>, "VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, Cao jin <caoj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>, Allison Randal <allison@...utok.net>, Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/11] x86: PIE support to extend KASLR randomization On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 10:45 AM H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > > On 2020-03-04 10:21, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 10:21:36AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> But at what cost; it does unspeakable ugly to the asm. And didn't a > >> kernel compiled with the extended PIE range produce a measurably slower > >> kernel due to all the ugly? > > > > Was that true? I thought the final results were a wash and that earlier > > benchmarks weren't accurate for some reason? I can't find the thread > > now. Thomas, do you have numbers on that? I have never seen a significant performance impact. Performance and size is better on more recent versions of gcc as it has better generation of PIE code (for example generation of switches). > > > > BTW, I totally agree that fgkaslr is the way to go in the future. I > > am mostly arguing for this under the assumption that it doesn't > > have meaningful performance impact and that it gains the kernel some > > flexibility in the kinds of things it can do in the future. If the former > > is not true, then I'd agree, the benefit needs to be more clear. > > > > "Making the assembly really ugly" by itself is a reason not to do it, in my > Not So Humble Opinion[TM]; but the reason the kernel and small memory models > exist in the first place is because there is a nonzero performance impact of > the small-PIC memory model. Having modules in separate regions would further > add the cost of a GOT references all over the place (PLT is optional, useless > and deprecated for eager binding) *plus* might introduce at least one new > vector of attack: overwrite a random GOT slot, and just wait until it gets hit > by whatever code path it happens to be in; the exact code path doesn't matter. > From an kASLR perspective this is *very* bad, since you only need to guess the > general region of a GOT rather than an exact address. I agree that it would add GOT references and I can explore that more in terms of performance impact and size. This patchset makes the GOT readonly too so I don't think the attack vector applies. > > The huge memory model, required for arbitrary placement, has a very > significant performance impact. I assume you mean mcmodel=large, it doesn't use it. It uses -fPIE and removes -mcmodel=kernel. It favors relative references whenever possible. > > The assembly code is *very* different across memory models. > > -hpa
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.