Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220420004241.2093-1-joao@overdrivepizza.com>
 <20220420004241.2093-2-joao@overdrivepizza.com> <20220429013704.4n4lmadpstdioe7a@treble>
 <d82459b887bcaf9181ad836051e2d16b@overdrivepizza.com> <20220503220244.vyz5flk3gg3y6rbw@treble>
 <YnJTYzralOhGGmED@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <YnKx5a9WvJ1UhWPm@google.com>
 <YnLDGcJGKfqi5+8w@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <YnLDGcJGKfqi5+8w@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 17:28:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCJKueqqq-keiyE8tYJQtfitxQt08vQwEfG41C8t3aJC8AwKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] x86: kernel FineIBT
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
        alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        gabriel.gomes@linux.intel.com, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:17 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> __cfi_\sym:                                     __cfi_\sym:
>                                                         int3; int3                              # 2
>         endbr                   # 4                     mov     \hash, %eax                     # 5
>         call    __fineibt_\hash # 5                     int3; int3                              # 2
> \sym:                                           \sym:

OK, that looks reasonable to me.

> It seems to preserve the properties of the last one in that direct calls
> will already be correct and we don't need linker fixups, and objtool can
> simply parse the preamble as regular instructions without needing
> further help.

Wouldn't objtool still print out unreachable instruction warnings here?

Sami