From: Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, samitolvanen@google.com,
mark.rutland@arm.com, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com, ndesaulniers@google.com,
gabriel.gomes@linux.intel.com, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/11] Kernel FineIBT Support
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 15:50:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <94c61936a0fd339430ef24dcaded759f@overdrivepizza.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202204191937.2720E7E@keescook>
> I think it'd be good to get kCFI landed in Clang first (since it is
> effectively architecture agnostic), and then get FineIBT landed. But
> that doesn't mean we can't be working on the kernel side of things at
> the same time.
FWIIW, I'm effectively taking some time away from work for the next 3
months. I'll be around to answer this and that, help reviewing KCFI and
maybe send small fixes around, but I'm not planning to land FineIBT in
clang anytime before that (specially now that I have a direction to look
into the linker approach as per the other thread e-mails). This should
give KCFI the time it needs to squeeze in.
>
> And just thinking generally, for other architecture-specific stuff,
> I do wonder what an arm64 PAC-based CFI might look like. I prefer
> things
> be hard-coded as kCFI is doing, but it'd be nice to be able to directly
> measure performance and size overheads comparing the various methods.
There are other important bullets to this list, I think, like power
consumption, robustness and collateral gains (like IBT's side-channel
hardening). But yeah, this is probably a good list to keep in mind for
us to discuss during plumbers :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-20 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-20 0:42 [RFC PATCH 00/11] Kernel FineIBT Support joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] x86: kernel FineIBT joao
2022-04-29 1:37 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-05-02 17:17 ` Joao Moreira
2022-05-03 22:02 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-05-04 2:19 ` Joao Moreira
2022-05-04 10:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-04 17:04 ` Peter Collingbourne
2022-05-04 18:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-05 0:28 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-05 7:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-08 8:29 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-09 11:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] kbuild: Support FineIBT build joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] objtool: Support FineIBT offset fixes joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] x86/module: Support FineIBT in modules joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] x86/text-patching: Support FineIBT text-patching joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] x86/bpf: Support FineIBT joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] x86/lib: Prevent UACCESS call warning from objtool joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] x86/ibt: Add CET_TEST module for IBT testing joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] x86/FineIBT: Add FINEIBT_TEST module joao
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] linux/interrupt: Fix prototype matching property joao
2022-04-20 2:45 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-20 22:14 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-20 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] driver/int3400_thermal: Fix prototype matching joao
2022-04-20 2:55 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-20 22:28 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-20 23:04 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-20 23:12 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-20 23:25 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-21 0:28 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-20 2:42 ` [RFC PATCH 00/11] Kernel FineIBT Support Kees Cook
2022-04-20 22:50 ` Joao Moreira [this message]
2022-04-20 7:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-20 15:17 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-04-20 17:12 ` Nick Desaulniers
2022-04-20 22:40 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-21 7:49 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-21 15:23 ` Joao Moreira
2022-04-21 15:35 ` H.J. Lu
2022-04-21 22:11 ` Fangrui Song
2022-04-21 22:26 ` H.J. Lu
2022-04-20 23:34 ` Edgecombe, Rick P
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=94c61936a0fd339430ef24dcaded759f@overdrivepizza.com \
--to=joao@overdrivepizza.com \
--cc=alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=gabriel.gomes@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).