Re: [PATCH v22 8/8] x86/vdso: Add ENDBR64 to __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave

From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@kernel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
	"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
	Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
	Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com>,
	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
	Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>,
	Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com>,
	Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 8/8] x86/vdso: Add ENDBR64 to __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:55:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YEudGizbVrQaRoPq@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c2bfe707-2ef6-213a-f02c-4689726a473a@intel.com>

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:20:20PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/10/21 2:55 PM, Yu, Yu-cheng wrote:
> > On 3/10/2021 2:39 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:05:19PM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> >>> When CET is enabled, __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() needs an endbr64
> >>> in the beginning of the function.
> >>
> >> OK.
> >>
> >> What you should do is to explain what it does and why it's needed.
> >>
> > 
> > The endbr marks a branch target.  Without the "no-track" prefix, if an
> > indirect call/jmp reaches a non-endbr opcode, a control-protection fault
> > is raised.  Usually endbr's are inserted by the compiler.  For assembly,
> > these have to be put in manually.  I will add this in the commit log if
> > there is another revision.  Thanks!
> 
> This is close, but it's missing a detail or two that I think is
> important for someone like Jarkko trying to figure out what it means for
> his subsystem or driver.
> 
> I'd probably say:
> 
> ENDBR is a special new instruction for the Indirect Branch Tracking
> (IBR) component of CET.  IBT prevents attacks by ensuring that (most)
> indirect branches and function calls may only land at ENDBR
> instructions.  Branches that don't follow the rules will result in
> control flow (#CF) exceptions.
> 
> ENDBR is a noop when IBT is unsupported or disabled.  Most ENDBR
> instructions are inserted automatically by the compiler, but branch
> targets written in assembly must have ENDBR added manually, like this one.

Thank you, this clears the whole thing a lot.

Doesn't this mean that it could be there just as well unconditionally?

/Jarkko