Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211122170301.764232470@infradead.org> <20211122170805.338489412@infradead.org>
 <6ebb0ab131c522f20c094294d49091fc@overdrivepizza.com> <202202081541.900F9E1B@keescook>
 <ad6c2633f39e39583bc5c5eaf7ccbe52@overdrivepizza.com> <202202082003.FA77867@keescook>
 <9ea50c51ee8db366430c9dc697a83923@overdrivepizza.com> <20220211133803.GV23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABCJKuciRBnz4JxBDJC=+kuJn4pU2uBkWPBov7-VL2o2j0F4SA@mail.gmail.com> <20220214222550.GB23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20220214222550.GB23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:56:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCJKuf-wouSCh4u43GPQHPPgG=mqOGboSoHPQRfmgQSBkFrMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] objtool: Add IBT validation / fixups
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        hjl.tools@gmail.com, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        llvm@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 2:25 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:38:18PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > I'm fine with adding a trap mode that's used by default, but having
> > more helpful diagnostics when something fails is useful even in
> > production systems in my experience. This change results in a vmlinux
> > that's another 0.92% smaller.
>
> You can easily have the exception generate a nice warning, you can even
> have it continue. You really don't need a call for that.

Sure, but wouldn't that require us to generate something like
__bug_table, so we know where the CFI specific traps are?

> > In this case the function has two indirect calls and Clang seems to
> > prefer to emit just one ud2.
>
> That will not allow you to recover from the exception. UD2 is not an
> unconditional fail. It should have an out-going edge in this case too.

Yes, CFI failures are not recoverable in that code. In fact, LLVM
assumes that the llvm.trap intrinsic (i.e. ud2) never returns, but I
suppose we could just use an int3 instead. I assume that's sufficient
to stop speculation?

> Also, you really should add a CS prefix to the retpoline thunk call if
> you insist on using r11 (or any of the higher regs).

I actually didn't touch the retpoline thunk call, that's exactly the
code Clang normally generates.

> > How would you like to deal with the 4-byte hashes in objtool? We
> > either need to annotate all function symbols in the kernel, or we need
> > a way to distinguish the hashes from random instructions, so we can
> > also have functions that don't have a type hash.
>
> Easiest would be to create a special section with all the hash offsets
> in I suppose. A bit like -mfentry-section=name.

OK, I'll take a look. With 64-bit hashes I was planning to use a known
prefix, but that's not really an option with a 32-bit hash.

Sami