Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:12:26 +0100
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
Message-ID: <20201118141226.GV3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20201116175107.02db396d@gandalf.local.home>
 <47463878.48157.1605640510560.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20201117142145.43194f1a@gandalf.local.home>
 <375636043.48251.1605642440621.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <20201117153451.3015c5c9@gandalf.local.home>
 <20201118132136.GJ3121378@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <87h7pmwyta.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87h7pmwyta.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Precedence: bulk

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.