Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191018161033.261971-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20191101221150.116536-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20191101221150.116536-12-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20191104171132.GB2024@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191104171132.GB2024@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:44:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCJKufDnLjP9vA-wSW0gSY05Cbr=NOpJ-WCh-bdj2ZNq7VNXw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/17] arm64: disable function graph tracing with SCS
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com>,
        Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:11 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> Can you please elaborate on _how_ this is incompatible in the commit
> message?
>
> For example, it's not clear to me if you mean that's functionally
> incompatible, or if you're trying to remove return-altering gadgets.
>
> If there's a functional incompatibility, please spell that out a bit
> more clearly. Likewise if this is about minimizing the set of places
> that can mess with control-flow outside of usual function conventions.

Sure, I'll add a better description in v5. In this case, the return
address is modified in the kernel stack, which means the changes are
ignored with SCS.

Sami