Kernel-hardening archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: oss-security@lists.openwall.com, x86-64-abi@googlegroups.com,
	 Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@arm.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative CET ABI
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:41:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG48ez3OF7DPupKv9mBBKmg-9hDVhVe83KrJ4Jk=CL0nOc7=Jg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87k0ylgff0.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:02 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> Functions no longer start with the ENDBR64 prefix.  Instead, the link
> editor produces a PLT entry with an ENDBR64 prefix if it detects any
> address-significant relocation for it.  The PLT entry performs a NOTRACK
> jump to the target address.  This assumes that the target address is
> subject to RELRO, of course, so that redirection is not possible.
> Without address-significant relocations, the link editor produces a PLT
> entry without the ENDBR64 prefix (but still with the NOTRACK jump), or
> perhaps no PLT entry at all.

How would this interact with function pointer comparisons? As in, if
library A exports a function func1 without referencing it, and
libraries B and C both take references to func1, would they end up
with different function pointers (pointing to their respective PLT
entries)? Would this mean that the behavior of a program that compares
function pointers obtained through different shared libraries might
change?

I guess you could maybe canonicalize function pointers somehow, but
that'd probably at least break dlclose(), right?

  reply index

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-30 16:01 Florian Weimer
2020-07-30 16:41 ` Jann Horn [this message]
2020-07-30 16:47   ` Szabolcs Nagy
2020-07-30 16:54   ` Florian Weimer
2020-07-30 17:14     ` H.J. Lu

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='CAG48ez3OF7DPupKv9mBBKmg-9hDVhVe83KrJ4Jk=CL0nOc7=Jg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=oss-security@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=szabolcs.nagy@arm.com \
    --cc=x86-64-abi@googlegroups.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

Kernel-hardening archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/kernel-hardening/0 kernel-hardening/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 kernel-hardening kernel-hardening/ https://lore.kernel.org/kernel-hardening \
		kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
	public-inbox-index kernel-hardening

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/com.openwall.lists.kernel-hardening


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git