All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] objtool: add base support for arm64
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:48:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXE+675mbS66kteKHNfcrco84WTaEL6ncVkkV7tQgbMpFw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YAlkOFwkb6/hFm1Q@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 12:23, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:08:23PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 11:26, Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not familiar with toolcahin code models, but would this approach be
> > > able to validate assembly code (either inline or in assembly files?)
> > >
> >
> > No, it would not. But those files are part of the code base, and can
> > be reviewed and audited.
>
> x86 has a long history if failing at exactly that.

That's a fair point. But on the flip side, maintaining objtool does
not look like it has been a walk in the park either.

What i am especially concerned about is things like 3193c0836f20,
where we actually have to disable certain compiler optimizations
because they interfere with objtool's ability to understand the
resulting object code. Correctness and performance are challenging
enough as requirements for generated code.

Mind you, I am not saying it is not worth it *for x86*, where there is
a lot of other stuff going on. But on arm64, we don't care about ORC,
about -fomit-frame-pointer, about retpolines or about any of the other
things objtool enables.

On arm64, all it currently seems to provide is a way to capture the
call stack accurately, and given that it needs a GCC plugin for this
(which needs to be maintained as well, which is non-trivial, and also
bars us from using objtool with Clang builds), my current position is
simply that opening this can of worms at this point is just not worth
it.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com>,
	linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] objtool: add base support for arm64
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:48:43 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXE+675mbS66kteKHNfcrco84WTaEL6ncVkkV7tQgbMpFw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YAlkOFwkb6/hFm1Q@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 12:23, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:08:23PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 11:26, Julien Thierry <jthierry@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not familiar with toolcahin code models, but would this approach be
> > > able to validate assembly code (either inline or in assembly files?)
> > >
> >
> > No, it would not. But those files are part of the code base, and can
> > be reviewed and audited.
>
> x86 has a long history if failing at exactly that.

That's a fair point. But on the flip side, maintaining objtool does
not look like it has been a walk in the park either.

What i am especially concerned about is things like 3193c0836f20,
where we actually have to disable certain compiler optimizations
because they interfere with objtool's ability to understand the
resulting object code. Correctness and performance are challenging
enough as requirements for generated code.

Mind you, I am not saying it is not worth it *for x86*, where there is
a lot of other stuff going on. But on arm64, we don't care about ORC,
about -fomit-frame-pointer, about retpolines or about any of the other
things objtool enables.

On arm64, all it currently seems to provide is a way to capture the
call stack accurately, and given that it needs a GCC plugin for this
(which needs to be maintained as well, which is non-trivial, and also
bars us from using objtool with Clang builds), my current position is
simply that opening this can of worms at this point is just not worth
it.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-21 11:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 106+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-01-20 17:37 [RFC PATCH 00/17] objtool: add base support for arm64 Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 01/17] tools: Add some generic functions and headers Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 02/17] tools: arm64: Make aarch64 instruction decoder available to tools Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 03/17] tools: bug: Remove duplicate definition Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 04/17] objtool: arm64: Add base definition for arm64 backend Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 05/17] objtool: arm64: Decode add/sub instructions Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 06/17] objtool: arm64: Decode jump and call related instructions Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 07/17] objtool: arm64: Decode other system instructions Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 08/17] objtool: arm64: Decode load/store instructions Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 09/17] objtool: arm64: Decode LDR instructions Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 10/17] objtool: arm64: Accept padding in code sections Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 11/17] efi: libstub: Ignore relocations for .discard sections Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 12/17] gcc-plugins: objtool: Add plugin to detect switch table on arm64 Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-27 22:15   ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-01-27 22:15     ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-01-27 23:26     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-27 23:26       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-29 18:10       ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-01-29 18:10         ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-01 21:44         ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-01 21:44           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-01 23:17           ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-01 23:17             ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-02  0:02             ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-02  0:02               ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-02 14:24               ` David Laight
2021-02-02 14:24                 ` David Laight
2021-02-02 22:33               ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-02 22:33                 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-02 23:36                 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-02 23:36                   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-02 23:52                   ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-02 23:52                     ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-02  8:57             ` Julien Thierry
2021-02-02  8:57               ` Julien Thierry
2021-02-02 23:01               ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-02 23:01                 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-02-03  0:14                 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-03  0:14                   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-02-03 11:57                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-02-03 11:57                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-02-03 13:04                   ` Mark Brown
2021-02-03 13:04                     ` Mark Brown
2021-02-03 13:58                   ` Mark Rutland
2021-02-03 13:58                     ` Mark Rutland
2021-02-03  8:11                 ` Julien Thierry
2021-02-03  8:11                   ` Julien Thierry
2021-02-09 16:30                 ` Daniel Kiss
2021-02-09 16:30                   ` Daniel Kiss
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 13/17] objtool: arm64: Implement functions to add switch tables alternatives Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 14/17] objtool: arm64: Cache section with switch table information Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 15/17] objtool: arm64: Handle supported relocations in alternatives Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 16/17] objtool: arm64: Ignore replacement section for alternative callback Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:37   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:38 ` [RFC PATCH 17/17] objtool: arm64: Enable stack validation for arm64 Julien Thierry
2021-01-20 17:38   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-21  5:39   ` kernel test robot
2021-01-21  9:03 ` [RFC PATCH 00/17] objtool: add base support " Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-21  9:03   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-21 10:26   ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-21 10:26     ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-21 11:08     ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-21 11:08       ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-21 11:23       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-21 11:23         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-01-21 11:48         ` Ard Biesheuvel [this message]
2021-01-21 11:48           ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-21 18:54           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-21 18:54             ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-22 17:43             ` Mark Brown
2021-01-22 17:43               ` Mark Brown
2021-01-22 17:54               ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-22 17:54                 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-28 22:10                 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-28 22:10                   ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-29 15:47                   ` Mark Brown
2021-01-22 21:15               ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-22 21:15                 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-22 21:43                 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-22 21:43                   ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-01-22 21:44                   ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-22 21:44                     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-25 21:19                   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-25 21:19                     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-01-22 21:16               ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-22 21:16                 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-01-21 13:23       ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-21 13:23         ` Julien Thierry
2021-01-21 14:23         ` Mark Brown
2021-01-21 14:23           ` Mark Brown

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=CAMj1kXE+675mbS66kteKHNfcrco84WTaEL6ncVkkV7tQgbMpFw@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
    --cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.