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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210322170711.1855115-1-arnd@kernel.org> <20210322153214.25d869b1@gandalf.local.home>
 <YFkCZuOwe37d2bV+@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAK8P3a2sz4emewH_HA+nsf0e5tP6qtAxhBOFucmzW4OPDJASdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210322172921.56350a69@gandalf.local.home> <YFmdJlESrCh4iC9A@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <0f4679d6-44a4-d045-f249-a9cffb126fd4@rasmusvillemoes.dk> <CABCJKuf1-GWda9_BiBO=nNP_drh3a8471G+LEqPzdVrLBhVqZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <b2d77e78-751e-283c-8cff-e9c4f16e27ef@prevas.dk> <YFt382FImjQQ+10f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a758cace-99ed-5c60-e59c-9f4f6b3a39c7@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
In-Reply-To: <a758cace-99ed-5c60-e59c-9f4f6b3a39c7@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 15:34:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCJKuek8Set48v5wa2sbCN1fN7DYSczJ9MdH4BcQBdky1YNaA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call: fix function type mismatch
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@akamai.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 2:51 PM Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>
> On 24/03/2021 18.33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> >> Sorry, I think I misread the code. The static calls are indeed
> >> initialized with a function with the right prototype. Try adding
> >> "preempt=full" on the command line so that we exercise these lines
> >>
> >>                static_call_update(cond_resched,
> >> (typeof(&__cond_resched)) __static_call_return0);
> >>                 static_call_update(might_resched,
> >> (typeof(&__cond_resched)) __static_call_return0);
> >>
> >> I would expect that to blow up, since we end up calling a long (*)(void)
> >> function using a function pointer of type int (*)(void).
> >
> > Note that on x86 there won't actually be any calling of function
> > pointers. See what arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c does :-)
>
> I know, but so far x86 is the only one with HAVE_STATIC_CALL, so for
> arm64 which is where CFI seems to be targeted initially, static_calls
> are function pointers. And unless CFI ignores the return type, I'd
> really expect the above to fail.

I think you're correct, this would trip CFI without HAVE_STATIC_CALL.
However, arm64 also doesn't support PREEMPT_DYNAMIC at the moment, so
this isn't currently a problem there.

Sami