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;
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-1345-g8441cd7852-fm-20211006.001-g8441cd78
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <1c8baf32-169e-4f53-9637-7e6383f20dfe@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCJKufhd3=6PR=WmteJBQ5xBnmvzQb7h3cJxDSJZjLHSSH22g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20211013181658.1020262-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20211013181658.1020262-4-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <7377e6b9-7130-4c20-a0c8-16de4620c995@www.fastmail.com> <8735p25llh.ffs@tglx>
 <eda70a35-33a8-43b4-a839-65f2a1f91bb5@www.fastmail.com>
 <CABCJKufhd3=6PR=WmteJBQ5xBnmvzQb7h3cJxDSJZjLHSSH22g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 10:34:16 -0700
From:   "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>
To:     "Sami Tolvanen" <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc:     "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "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
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, at 9:47 AM, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 9:22 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrot=
e:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021, at 8:55 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > On Thu, Oct 14 2021 at 19:51, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> +/*
>> >>> + * Declares a function not callable from C using an opaque type.=
 Defined as
>> >>> + * an array to allow the address of the symbol to be taken witho=
ut '&'.
>> >>> + */
>> >> 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 mem=
ory
>> >> or if they=E2=80=99re in a funny section, dereferencing them may f=
ail.)
>> >
>> > 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 the=
se
>> > 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
>> >
>> >     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.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Ah, but clear_page_erms is a different beast entirely as compared to,=
 say, the syscall entry. It *is* a C function.  So I see two ways to han=
dle it:
>>
>> 1. Make it completely opaque.  Tglx doesn=E2=80=99t like it, and I ag=
ree, but it would *work*.
>>
>> 2. Make it a correctly typed function. In clang CFI land, this may or=
 may not be =E2=80=9Ccanonical=E2=80=9D (or non canonical?).
>
> Technically speaking the clear_page_* declarations don't need to be
> changed for CFI, they do work fine as is, but I included them in the
> patch as they're not actually called from C code right now. But you're
> right, we should use a proper function declarations for these. I'll
> drop the changes to this file in the next version.

If you were to call (with a regular C function call using ()) clear_page=
_erms, what happens?  IMO it should either work or fail to compile. Cras=
hing is no good.

>
> I wouldn't mind having a consensus on how to deal with exception
> handlers etc. though. Should I still use opaque types for those?
>

Yes, as they are not C functions.

> Sami