Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 26 Apr 2019 09:49:56 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        Jonathan Adams <jwadams@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/7] x86/sci: add core implementation for system call
 isolation
Message-ID: <20190426074956.GZ4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1556228754-12996-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com>
 <1556228754-12996-3-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1556228754-12996-3-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 12:45:49AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> The initial SCI implementation allows access to any kernel data, but it
> limits access to the code in the following way:
> * calls and jumps to known code symbols without offset are allowed
> * calls and jumps into a known symbol with offset are allowed only if that
> symbol was already accessed and the offset is in the next page
> * all other code access are blocked

So if you have a large function and an in-function jump skips a page
you're toast.

Why not employ the instruction decoder we have and unconditionally allow
all direct JMP/CALL but verify indirect JMP/CALL and RET ?

Anyway, I'm fearing the overhead of this one, this cannot be fast.