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 14:46:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>, 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@vger.kernel.org,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev, ardb@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] x86: Add support for Clang CFI
Message-ID: <20211027124649.GJ174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20211013181658.1020262-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20211026201622.GG174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20211027120515.GC54628@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211027120515.GC54628@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:05:15PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:16:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:16:43AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > > This series adds support for Clang's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI)
> > > checking to x86_64. With CFI, the compiler injects a runtime
> > > check before each indirect function call to ensure the target is
> > > a valid function with the correct static type. This restricts
> > > possible call targets and makes it more difficult for an attacker
> > > to exploit bugs that allow the modification of stored function
> > > pointers. For more details, see:
> > > 
> > >   https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.html
> > 
> > So, if I understand this right, the compiler emits, for every function
> > two things: 1) the actual funcion and 2) a jump-table entry.
> > 
> > Then, every time the address of a function is taken, 2) is given instead
> > of the expected 1), right?
> 
> Yes, and we had to bodge around this with function_nocfi() to get the
> actual function address.

The patch set under consideration seems to have forgotten to provide one
for x86 :/

> Really there should be a compiler intrinsic or attribute for this, given
> the compiler has all the releveant information available. On arm64 we
> had to us inine asm to generate the addres...

Agreed, this *really* shouldn't be an arch asm hack trying to undo
something the compiler did.