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: <20220513202159.1550547-1-samitolvanen@google.com>
 <20220513202159.1550547-8-samitolvanen@google.com> <202205141447.E3B5A29@keescook>
In-Reply-To: <202205141447.E3B5A29@keescook>
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 May 2022 09:04:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCJKudrY2b4ZXUaXOmKEB-LG192u2PSfsT-=Vc1bcg3QwY6aw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 07/21] cfi: Add type helper macros
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 2:49 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 01:21:45PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > With CONFIG_CFI_CLANG, assembly functions called indirectly
> > from C code must be annotated with type identifiers to pass CFI
> > checking. The compiler emits a __kcfi_typeid_<function> symbol for
> > each address-taken function declaration in C, which contains the
> > expected type identifier. Add typed versions of SYM_FUNC_START and
> > SYM_FUNC_START_ALIAS, which emit the type identifier before the
> > function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
>
> And the reason to not make this change universally (i.e. directly in
> SYM_FUNC_START) is to minimize how many of these symbol annotations get
> emitted? (And to more directly indicate which asm is called indirectly?)

The reason not to add this to SYM_FUNC_START is that the compiler
doesn't emit the type symbols for all functions. It currently emits
them for all address-taken function declarations in each translation
unit. We could potentially further limit this by emitting them only
for function declarations with a specific attribute, for example, but
that's something we can optimize later.

> What happens if an asm function is called indirectly and it doesn't have
> this annotation?

It will fail the CFI check.

> (Is this case detectable at compile-time?)

It's not. I'll update the commit message in the next version to
clarify these points.

Sami