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, 27 Oct 2021 14:48:52 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        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 00/15] x86: Add support for Clang CFI
Message-ID: <20211027124852.GK174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211013181658.1020262-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20211026201622.GG174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20211027120515.GC54628@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
 <CAMj1kXEx10gC8eH7rV-GbZZj2M3uDue6HYsKb+A5J01zOxm_FA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXEx10gC8eH7rV-GbZZj2M3uDue6HYsKb+A5J01zOxm_FA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 02:22:27PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 14:05, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:

> > > Should not this jump-table thingy get converted to an actual function
> > > address somewhere around arch_static_call_transform() ? This also seems
> > > relevant for arm64 (which already has CLANG_CFI supported) given:
> > >
> > >   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211025122102.46089-3-frederic@kernel.org
> >
> > Ugh, yeah, we'll need to do the function_nocfi() dance somewhere...
> >
> 
> Sadly, that only works on symbol names, so we cannot use it to strip
> CFI-ness from void *func arguments passed into the static call API,
> unfortunately.

Right, and while mostly static_call_update() is used, whcih is a macro
and could possibly be used to wrap this, we very much rely on
__static_call_update() also working without that wrapper and then we're
up a creek without no paddles.