From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
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 v5 03/15] linkage: Add DECLARE_NOT_CALLED_FROM_C
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 14:12:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211016211200.umf7okyvtet5ayrd@treble> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABCJKucuun-n8w3=U6i43kVGkCgYL7kmz5wx8nYxsxUOCfzBFw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 01:37:02PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > But we *also* have the read-the-address thing:
> >
> > void something(void)
> > {
> > /* actual C body */
> > }
> > alternative_call(something, someotherthing, ...);
> >
> > That wants to expand to assembly code that does:
> >
> > CALL [target]
> >
> > where [target] is the actual first instruction of real code and not
> > a CFI prologue.
>
> Yes, here we would ideally want to avoid the CFI stub for better
> performance, but nothing actually breaks even if we don't.
That's because there's no CFI involved in alternative_call(). It
doesn't use function pointers. It uses direct calls.
So all the discussion about clear_page_*() is completely irrelevant. It
has nothing to do with CFI.
Same for copy_user_enhanced_fast_string() and friends.
> > And this all wants to work both for asm-defined functions and
> > C-defined functions. This really is orthogonal to the
> > is-it-asm-or-is-it-C things. All four combinations are possible.
> >
> > Does this make any sense?
Not really, I think Sami debunked most of your theories :-)
I think you're misunderstanding how Clang CFI works. It doesn't
instrument the target function. It hooks into the caller's function
pointer relocation, so when I try to call func_ptr(), the compiler
hijacks the function pointer and forces me to call into a
func_ptr.cfi_jt() checking function instead.
> > I kind of thing we want the attributes and the builtin, along the lines of:
> >
> > asm("call %m", function_nocfi_address(something));
> >
> > or however else we wire it up.
> >
> > (And, of course, the things that aren't C functions at all, like
> > exception entries, should be opaque.)
>
> I agree, there are cases where having a function attribute and/or a
> built-in to stop the compiler from interfering would be useful. I'll
> dust off my patch series and see how the LLVM folks feel about it.
With all the talk about function attributes I still haven't heard a
clear and specific case where one is needed.
If you take out the things that don't actually need the
DEFINE_NOT_CALLED_FROM_C() annotation then all you have left is the need
for opaque structs as far as I can tell.
--
Josh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-16 21:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 117+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-13 18:16 [PATCH v5 00/15] x86: Add support for Clang CFI Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 01/15] objtool: Add CONFIG_CFI_CLANG support Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:59 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-14 0:44 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-10-14 10:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-14 19:20 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 02/15] objtool: Add ASM_STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:59 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 03/15] linkage: Add DECLARE_NOT_CALLED_FROM_C Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 19:00 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-15 2:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-10-15 15:35 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-15 15:55 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-10-15 16:22 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-10-15 16:47 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-15 17:34 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-10-15 17:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-10-15 18:42 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-15 19:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-10-15 20:37 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-16 21:12 ` Josh Poimboeuf [this message]
2021-10-18 17:08 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-15 22:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-10-16 21:16 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 04/15] cfi: Add DEFINE_CFI_IMMEDIATE_RETURN_STUB Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 19:02 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 05/15] tracepoint: Exclude tp_stub_func from CFI checking Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 19:03 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-13 19:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 06/15] ftrace: Use an opaque type for functions not callable from C Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 19:04 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-13 19:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 07/15] lkdtm: Disable UNSET_SMEP with CFI Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 08/15] lkdtm: Use an opaque type for lkdtm_rodata_do_nothing Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 09/15] x86: Use an opaque type for functions not callable from C Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-14 11:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-10-14 16:07 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-14 17:31 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-10-14 18:24 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-14 19:00 ` Nick Desaulniers
2021-10-14 18:47 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-14 18:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2021-10-14 19:06 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 10/15] x86/purgatory: Disable CFI Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 19:05 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 11/15] x86, relocs: Ignore __typeid__ relocations Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 12/15] x86, module: " Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:55 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 13/15] x86, cpu: Use LTO for cpu.c with CFI Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 14/15] x86, kprobes: Fix optprobe_template_func type mismatch Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:16 ` [PATCH v5 15/15] x86, build: Allow CONFIG_CFI_CLANG to be selected Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-13 18:56 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-13 19:07 ` [PATCH v5 00/15] x86: Add support for Clang CFI Kees Cook
2021-10-19 10:06 ` Alexander Lobakin
2021-10-19 15:40 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-21 10:27 ` Alexander Lobakin
2021-10-26 20:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 10:02 ` David Laight
2021-10-27 10:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 12:05 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-27 12:22 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-27 12:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 13:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-27 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 14:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-27 14:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 15:50 ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-27 15:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-29 20:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-30 7:47 ` [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-30 8:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-02 17:35 ` Kees Cook
2021-11-02 18:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-15 13:09 ` Rasmus Villemoes
2021-10-30 17:19 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-30 18:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-30 18:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-31 16:24 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-31 16:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-31 16:44 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-31 20:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-31 20:21 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-10-31 20:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-31 23:36 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-11-01 9:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-01 9:36 ` David Laight
2021-11-01 14:14 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-11-02 12:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-02 15:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-02 17:44 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-11-02 18:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-02 18:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-02 18:18 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-11-02 21:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-02 18:10 ` Kees Cook
2021-11-02 21:02 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-11-02 23:13 ` Kees Cook
2021-11-03 0:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-11-03 8:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-03 10:01 ` David Laight
2021-11-03 19:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-11-02 21:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-11 12:15 ` [tip: locking/urgent] " tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-30 19:07 ` [PATCH v5 00/15] x86: Add support for Clang CFI Sami Tolvanen
2021-10-27 17:11 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-27 21:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 22:27 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-28 11:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-28 17:12 ` Kees Cook
2021-10-28 20:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-02 17:26 ` Kees Cook
2021-11-01 4:13 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-10-27 12:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-10-27 12:55 ` David Laight
2021-10-27 13:17 ` Mark Rutland
2021-10-27 21:31 ` David Laight
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=20211016211200.umf7okyvtet5ayrd@treble \
--to=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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).