From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@redhat.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] add param that allows bootline control of hardened usercopy
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 19:47:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0bf9be39-82bb-ad3a-a3c3-e41bebedba7e@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJa=jEZmRQa6TYuOFORHs_nYvQAO3Q3Hv5vz4tsHd00nQ@mail.gmail.com>
On 07/04/2018 06:52 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:43 AM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>> On 07/03/2018 09:43 PM, Chris von Recklinghausen wrote:
>>
>> Subject: [PATCH v7] add param that allows bootline control of hardened
>> usercopy
>>
>> s/bootline/boot time/ ?
>>
>>> v1->v2:
>>> remove CONFIG_HUC_DEFAULT_OFF
>>> default is now enabled, boot param disables
>>> move check to __check_object_size so as to not break optimization of
>>> __builtin_constant_p()
>>
>> Sorry for late and drive-by suggestion, but I think the change above is
>> kind of a waste because there's a function call overhead only to return
>> immediately.
>>
>> Something like this should work and keep benefits of both the built-in
>> check and avoiding function call?
>>
>> static __always_inline void check_object_size(const void *ptr, unsigned
>> long n, bool to_user)
>> {
>> if (!__builtin_constant_p(n) &&
>> static_branch_likely(&bypass_usercopy_checks))
>> __check_object_size(ptr, n, to_user);
>> }
>
> This produces less efficient code in the general case, and I'd like to
> keep the general case (hardening enabled) as fast as possible.
How specifically is the code less efficient? It should be always a
static key check (no-op thanks to the code patching involved) and a
function call in the "hardening enabled" case, just in different order.
And in either case compiled out if it's a constant.
> -Kees
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-04 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-03 19:43 Chris von Recklinghausen
2018-07-04 5:42 ` Kees Cook
2018-07-04 13:43 ` Vlastimil Babka
2018-07-04 16:52 ` Kees Cook
2018-07-04 17:47 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2018-07-15 2:04 ` Kees Cook
2018-07-16 11:30 ` Vlastimil Babka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0bf9be39-82bb-ad3a-a3c3-e41bebedba7e@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=crecklin@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=labbott@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox