Re: [RFC/RFT] CFI: Add support for gcc CFI in aarch64

From: Dan Li <ashimida.1990@gmail.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@oracle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>,
	Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>,
	Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@gmail.com>,
	Changbin Du <changbin.du@intel.com>,
	linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] CFI: Add support for gcc CFI in aarch64
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 07:42:13 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230107154213.ocyghxd2k66gbvv6@ubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202301061929.6881F6CD40@keescook>

Hi Kees,

On 01/06, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 05:32:04AM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> Hi!
> 
> First of all, thank you thank you for working on this in GCC. This will
> make a big difference for folks that don't have the option to build with
> Clang to gain CFI coverage.
> 
> As for the implementation details, the core issue is really that this
> type of CFI is specifically designed for the Linux kernel, and it took a
> rather long time to figure out all the specifics needed (down to the
> byte counts and instruction layouts). GCC's version will ultimately need
> to exactly match the Clang output, or Linux is unlikely to support it.
> 
> We're already on our second CFI -- the original Clang CFI was just too
> clunky for long-term use in Linux, so unless we're going to improve on
> the latest Clang KCFI implementation in some way, it's better to stick
> to exactly byte-for-byte identical results. The KCFI support in Linux
> depends on the arm64 and x86_64 runtimes for catching the traps, and the
> post-processing done (on x86_64) with objtool that prepares the kernel
> for IBT use, and converts to the optional FineIBT CFI mechanism. With
> all those moving parts, there needs to be a very compelling reason to
> have GCC KCFI implementation differ from Clang's.
> 
> Hopefully that context helps a little. I'm excited to try out future
> versions!

Thanks for the context, it makes sense and helped me a lot. :)

In the next version I'll make the gcc implementation consistent with clang.

Thanks,
Dan.

> 
> -Kees
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook