From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Matt Mullins <mmullins@mmlx.us>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@chromium.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: violating function pointer signature
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:12:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201118141226.GV3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h7pmwyta.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 02:59:29PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra:
>
> > I think that as long as the function is completely empty (it never
> > touches any of the arguments) this should work in practise.
> >
> > That is:
> >
> > void tp_nop_func(void) { }
> >
> > can be used as an argument to any function pointer that has a void
> > return. In fact, I already do that, grep for __static_call_nop().
>
> You can pass it as a function parameter, but in general, you cannot
> call the function with a different prototype. Even trivial
> differences such as variadic vs non-variadic prototypes matter.
I don't think any tracepoint uses variadic argument.
> The default Linux calling conventions are all of the cdecl family,
> where the caller pops the argument off the stack. You didn't quote
> enough to context to tell whether other calling conventions matter in
> your case.
This is strictly in-kernel, and I think we're all cdecl, of which the
important part is caller-cleanup. The function compiles to:
RET
so whatever the arguments are is irrelevant.
> > I'm not sure what the LLVM-CFI crud makes of it, but that's their
> > problem.
>
> LTO can cause problems as well, particularly with whole-program
> optimization.
I don't think LTO can de-virtualize a dynamic array of function
pointers, so there's very little risk. That said, the __static_call_nop
case, where everything is inlined, is compiled sub-optimally for both
LLVM and GCC.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-18 14:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-16 22:51 [PATCH] tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to memory allocation Steven Rostedt
2020-11-16 23:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-17 19:15 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-11-17 19:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-17 19:47 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-11-17 20:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-17 20:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-17 21:22 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-11-17 22:16 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-17 23:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-11-18 1:11 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-17 21:08 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-11-18 13:21 ` violating function pointer signature Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-18 13:59 ` Florian Weimer
2020-11-18 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-11-18 14:18 ` Florian Weimer
2020-11-18 14:34 ` [PATCH v3] tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to memory allocation Steven Rostedt
2020-11-24 5:59 ` Matt Mullins
2020-11-18 14:22 ` violating function pointer signature Steven Rostedt
2020-11-18 19:46 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-11-18 20:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-18 14:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-18 16:01 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2020-11-18 16:19 ` David Laight
2020-11-18 16:50 ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-11-18 17:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-18 18:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-18 18:31 ` Florian Weimer
2020-11-18 18:55 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-18 18:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-18 18:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-18 19:11 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-18 19:33 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-18 19:48 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-18 20:44 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-19 8:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-19 8:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-19 14:37 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-19 14:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-19 16:35 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-19 17:42 ` David Laight
2020-11-19 19:27 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-11-19 17:04 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-11-19 17:30 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-20 1:31 ` Nick Desaulniers
2020-11-17 21:33 ` [PATCH] tracepoint: Do not fail unregistering a probe due to memory allocation Kees Cook
2020-11-17 22:19 ` Steven Rostedt
2020-11-17 23:12 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=20201118141226.GV3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=andriin@fb.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kpsingh@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-toolchains@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mmullins@mmlx.us \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.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).