Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] x86: kernel FineIBT

From: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
	andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	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 01/11] x86: kernel FineIBT
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 10:04:02 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YnKx5a9WvJ1UhWPm@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YnJTYzralOhGGmED@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 12:20:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2022 at 03:02:44PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> > I'm not really qualified to comment on this too directly since I haven't
> > looked very much at the variations on FineIBT/CFI/KCFI, and what the
> > protections and drawbacks are for each approach, and when it might even
> > make sense to combine them for a "paranoid user".
> > 
> > Since we have multiple similar and possibly competing technologies being
> > discussed, one thing I do want to warn against is that we as kernel
> > developers tend to err on the side of giving people too many choices and
> > combinations which *never* get used.
> 
> So I don't think there's going to be a user choice here. If there's
> hardware support, FineIBT makes more sense. That also means that kCFI no
> longer needs to worry about IBT.
> 
> If we do something like:
> 
> 
>         kCFI                                            FineIBT
> 
> __cfi_\sym:                                     __cfi_\sym:
>         endbr                           # 4             endbr                   # 4
>         sub $hash, %r10                 # 7             sub $hash, %r10         # 7
>         je \sym                         # 2             je \sym                 # 2
>         ud2                             # 2             ud2                     # 2
> \sym:                                           \sym:
> 
> 
> caller:                                         caller:
>         cmpl $hash, -8(%r11)            # 8             movl $hash, %r10d       # 6
>         je 1f                           # 2             sub 15, %r11            # 4
>         ud2                             # 2             call *%r11              # 3
> 1:      call __x86_indirect_thunk_r11   # 5             .nop 4                  # 4 (could even fix up r11 again)
> 
> 
> Then, all that's required is a slight tweak to apply_retpolines() to
> rewrite a little more text.
> 
> Note that this also does away with having to fix up the linker, since
> all direct call will already point at \sym. It's just the IBT indirect
> calls that need to frob the pointer in order to hit the ENDBR.
> 
> On top of that, we no longer have to special case the objtool
> instruction decoder, the prelude are proper instructions now.

For kCFI this brings back the gadget problem that I mentioned here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Yh7fLRYl8KgMcOe5@google.com/

because the hash at the call site is 8 bytes before the call
instruction.

Peter