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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        "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
In-Reply-To: <7377e6b9-7130-4c20-a0c8-16de4620c995@www.fastmail.com>
References: <20211013181658.1020262-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20211013181658.1020262-4-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <7377e6b9-7130-4c20-a0c8-16de4620c995@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 17:55:22 +0200
Message-ID: <8735p25llh.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 14 2021 at 19:51, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>>=20
>> +/*
>> + * Declares a function not callable from C using an opaque type. Define=
d as
>> + * an array to allow the address of the symbol to be taken without '&'.
>> + */
> I=E2=80=99m not convinced that taking the address without using & is a
> laudable goal.  The magical arrays-are-pointers-too behavior of C is a
> mistake, not a delightful simplification.

>> +#ifndef DECLARE_NOT_CALLED_FROM_C
>> +#define DECLARE_NOT_CALLED_FROM_C(sym) \
>> +	extern const u8 sym[]
>> +#endif
>

> The relevant property of these symbols isn=E2=80=99t that they=E2=80=99re=
 not called
> from C.  The relevant thing is that they are just and not objects of a
> type that the programmer cares to tell the compiler about. (Or that
> the compiler understands, for that matter. On a system with XO memory
> or if they=E2=80=99re in a funny section, dereferencing them may fail.)

I agree.

> So I think we should use incomplete structs, which can=E2=80=99t be
> dereferenced and will therefore be less error prone.

While being late to that bike shed painting party, I really have to ask
the question _why_ can't the compiler provide an annotation for these
kind of things which:

    1) Make the build fail when invoked directly

    2) Tell CFI that this is _NOT_ something it can understand

-void clear_page_erms(void *page);
+void __bikeshedme clear_page_erms(void *page);

That still tells me:

    1) This is a function
=20=20=20=20
    2) It has a regular argument which is expected to be in RDI

which even allows to do analyis of e.g. the alternative call which
invokes that function.

DECLARE_NOT_CALLED_FROM_C(clear_page_erms);

loses these properties and IMO it's a tasteless hack.

Thanks,

        tglx