From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from casper.infradead.org (casper.infradead.org [90.155.50.34])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5126068
	for <llvm@lists.linux.dev>; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 20:11:54 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=infradead.org; s=casper.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:
	References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:
	Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description;
	bh=OW5ANKTELS4/Aqv77rAWcip0XRuLRuzAugVfabAVKQc=; b=eNFWK3G4bwmB14XaQrXIvSMW1f
	PdSYpdhYYUuAc84UDg5jz3ejRlnl1XNm8wfgH4eT8vgg/f736jKT8ghTEodQXsj0TLEuCTYvCgOPG
	+bnnwxP9zYkrUheSfcKwtKZFRhrTb2FbR77abGWs1QSa8Nnef0cnGx7d5BnlKw86ohUudlPwTrtF1
	Evmcz7DRAUvFkWB3Lm0TRX+ljtIuHxLH4CB5KdLiJciuCEUwDnj7CQUCNTUocE2uOOTPcuB48RNJA
	zgS4tg7oJ+T62KeegFL34bkODuNiPuiqD04eSkhfGpyOvwApV6BFHR51QjsIgcL0taMyu9Smqkvh7
	BN3597nA==;
Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net)
	by casper.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux))
	id 1mhH9I-003HDw-Cz; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 20:10:04 +0000
Received: from hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net [192.168.1.225])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 712FA300243;
	Sun, 31 Oct 2021 21:09:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 5250625F3BD9C; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 21:09:46 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 21:09:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching
Message-ID: <YX74Ch9/DtvYxzh/@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CAMj1kXECTdDLVMk2JduU5mV2TR0Cv=hZ9QOpYRsRM1jfvvNikw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABCJKufpS4jJxHqk8=bd1JCNbKfmLDKBbjbhjrar2+YQJFiprg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211029200324.GR174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20211030074758.GT174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMj1kXEJd5=3A_6Jhd4UU-TBGarnHo5+U76Zxxt7SzXsWp4CcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211030180249.GU174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMj1kXF4ZNAvdC8tP_H=v1Dn_Zcv=La11Ok43ceQOyb1Xo1jXQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMj1kXEvemVOWf4M_0vsduN_kiCsGVmM92cE7KPMoNKViKp=RQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211031163920.GV174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAMj1kXHk5vbrT49yRCivX3phrEkN6Xbb+g8WEmavL_d1iE0OxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev
List-Id: <llvm.lists.linux.dev>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:llvm+subscribe@lists.linux.dev>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:llvm+unsubscribe@lists.linux.dev>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXHk5vbrT49yRCivX3phrEkN6Xbb+g8WEmavL_d1iE0OxQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 05:44:04PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

> > Is is also a terriblly gross hack. I really want the clang-cfi stuff to
> > improve, not add layers of hacks on top of it.
> 
> I'm just as annoyed as you are about the apparent need for this.
> However, emitting an alias at build time is far better IMHO than
> adding a magic byte sequence and having to check it at runtime.

Oh, I'm keeping that magic sequence :-) That's hardening in general, and
I don't want to ever want to debug a wrong poke like that again.

Adding an extra label fixes this thing, but there's still the other
cases where we need/want/desire a *real* function pointer.

I'm very close to saying that anything that mucks up function pointers
like this is a complete non-starter. Let's start re-start this whole CFI
endeavour from the start.