From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Neal Liu <neal.liu@mediatek.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-tegra <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC..."
<linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
wsd_upstream <wsd_upstream@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: change enter_s2idle() prototype
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2020 17:48:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jyWbnztoTGkA88-4FwUjbvQvbW5a+GreJT-uJoNREPOA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1595591389.14564.3.camel@mtkswgap22>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 1:50 PM Neal Liu <neal.liu@mediatek.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 13:20 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 12:24 PM Neal Liu <neal.liu@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 11:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 9:07 PM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 04:21:34PM +0800, Neal Liu wrote:
> > > > > > Gentle ping on this patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 11:08 +0800, Neal Liu wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2020-07-09 at 14:18 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:13 AM Neal Liu <neal.liu@mediatek.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Control Flow Integrity(CFI) is a security mechanism that disallows
> > > > > > > > > changes to the original control flow graph of a compiled binary,
> > > > > > > > > making it significantly harder to perform such attacks.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > init_state_node() assign same function callback to different
> > > > > > > > > function pointer declarations.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > static int init_state_node(struct cpuidle_state *idle_state,
> > > > > > > > > const struct of_device_id *matches,
> > > > > > > > > struct device_node *state_node) { ...
> > > > > > > > > idle_state->enter = match_id->data; ...
> > > > > > > > > idle_state->enter_s2idle = match_id->data; }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Function declarations:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > struct cpuidle_state { ...
> > > > > > > > > int (*enter) (struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > > > > > > > > struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> > > > > > > > > int index);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > void (*enter_s2idle) (struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > > > > > > > > struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> > > > > > > > > int index); };
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In this case, either enter() or enter_s2idle() would cause CFI check
> > > > > > > > > failed since they use same callee.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can you please explain this in a bit more detail?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As it stands, I don't understand the problem statement enough to apply
> > > > > > > > the patch.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, Let's me try to explain more details.
> > > > > > > Control Flow Integrity(CFI) is a security mechanism that disallows
> > > > > > > changes to the original control flow graph of a compiled binary, making
> > > > > > > it significantly harder to perform such attacks.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are multiple control flow instructions that could be manipulated
> > > > > > > by the attacker and subvert control flow. The target instructions that
> > > > > > > use data to determine the actual destination.
> > > > > > > - indirect jump
> > > > > > > - indirect call
> > > > > > > - return
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In this case, function prototype between caller and callee are mismatch.
> > > > > > > Caller: (type A)funcA
> > > > > > > Callee: (type A)funcB
> > > > > > > Callee: (type C)funcC
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > funcA calls funcB -> no problem
> > > > > > > funcA calls funcC -> CFI check failed
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's why we try to align function prototype.
> > > > > > > Please feel free to feedback if you have any questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you should include a better explanation in the commit message.
> > > > > Perhaps something like this?
> > > > >
> > > > > init_state_node assigns the same callback function to both enter and
> > > > > enter_s2idle despite mismatching function types, which trips indirect
> > > > > call checking with Control-Flow Integrity (CFI).
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Align function prototype of enter() since it needs return value for
> > > > > > > > > some use cases. The return value of enter_s2idle() is no
> > > > > > > > > need currently.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So last time I requested you to document why ->enter_s2idle needs to
> > > > > > > > return an int in the code, which has not been done. Please do that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rafael, are you happy with the commit message documenting the reason,
> > > > > or would you prefer to also add a comment before enter_s2idle?
> > > >
> > > > As I said before, it would be good to have a comment in the code as
> > > > well or people will be wondering why it is necessary to return
> > > > anything from that callback, because its return value is never used.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > Is it okay to add these comments before enter_s2idle?
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Align function type since init_state_node assigns the same callback
> >
> > init_state_node()
> >
> > > * function to both enter and enter_s2idle despite mismatching function
> >
> > ->enter_s2idle
> >
> > > * types, which trips indirect call checking with Control-Flow Integrity
> > > * (CFI).
> > > */
> > > int (*enter_s2idle)(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
> > > struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> > > int index);
> >
> > But IMO it would be sufficient to add something like this to the
> > existing comment regarding ->enter_s2idle:
> >
> > "This callback may point to the same function as ->enter if all of the
> > above requirements are met by it."
> >
> > That would explain why the signature is the same sufficiently in my view.
> >
> > Thanks!
>
> For clarification, do you mean add this comment on enter_s2idle function
> pointer declaration is enough?
Yes, I do.
Thanks!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-25 15:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-06 3:13 [PATCH v2] cpuidle: Fix CFI failure Neal Liu
2020-07-06 3:13 ` [PATCH v2] cpuidle: change enter_s2idle() prototype Neal Liu
2020-07-07 16:43 ` Sami Tolvanen
2020-07-09 12:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-07-10 3:08 ` Neal Liu
2020-07-20 8:21 ` Neal Liu
2020-07-23 19:07 ` Sami Tolvanen
2020-07-24 9:57 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-07-24 10:24 ` Neal Liu
2020-07-24 11:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-07-24 11:49 ` Neal Liu
2020-07-25 15:48 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
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=CAJZ5v0jyWbnztoTGkA88-4FwUjbvQvbW5a+GreJT-uJoNREPOA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=jonathanh@nvidia.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
--cc=neal.liu@mediatek.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=wsd_upstream@mediatek.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).