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;
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 13:24:29 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>,
        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
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] objtool: Add IBT validation / fixups
Message-ID: <20220216122429.GB86719@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <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>
 <CABCJKuf-wouSCh4u43GPQHPPgG=mqOGboSoHPQRfmgQSBkFrMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <202202151129.1A5C5FE42@keescook>
 <20220215210550.GD23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220215210550.GD23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:05:50PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > Peter, is there a reason you want things in the specific order of:
> > 
> > cmp, je-to-call, trap, call
> > 
> > Isn't it more run-time efficient to have an out-of-line failure of
> > the form:
> > 
> > cmp, jne-to-trap, call, ...code..., trap, jmp-to-call
> > 
> > I thought the static label stuff allowed the "default out of line"
> > option, as far as pessimizing certain states, etc? The former is certainly
> > code-size smaller, though, yes, but doesn't it waste space in the cache
> > line for the unlikely case, etc?
> 
> Mostly so that we can deduce the address of the trap from the retpoline
> site, also the above has a fairly high chance of using jcc.d32 which is
> actually larger than jcc.d8+ud2.

Also; and I think I mentioned this a few emails back, by having the
whole CFI thing as a single range of bytes it becomes easier to patch.