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:   Sun, 28 Apr 2019 08:45:05 +0300
From:   Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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
References: <1556228754-12996-1-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com>
 <1556228754-12996-3-git-send-email-rppt@linux.ibm.com>
 <20190426074956.GZ4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190426074956.GZ4038@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Message-Id: <20190428054505.GC14896@rapoport-lnx>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 09:49:56AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.

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

Apparently I didn't dig deep enough to find the instruction decoder :)
Surely I can use it.

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

Well, I think that the verification itself is not what will slow things
down the most. IMHO, the major overhead is coming from cr3 switch.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.