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: <20220716230344.239749011@linutronix.de> <87wncauslw.ffs@tglx>
 <87tu7euska.ffs@tglx> <CAHk-=wjpzVRU0Yr_0DJSB_bKHW3_74UucNpJBjxfHPo_R=PYNg@mail.gmail.com>
 <87o7xmup5t.ffs@tglx> <YtXOMPpmx8TcFtOX@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CABCJKufACEoUz=SVakAFVKhhwFb6biaPdiC_1cA=NRAUiak5hQ@mail.gmail.com> <87ilnuuiw8.ffs@tglx>
In-Reply-To: <87ilnuuiw8.ffs@tglx>
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:10:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCJKufysUur5jb1OX7ksb4UrvLszSz=FOtHH22GcTrLFZWx+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/38] x86/retbleed: Call depth tracking mitigation
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
        Johannes Wikner <kwikner@ethz.ch>,
        Alyssa Milburn <alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao.moreira@intel.com>,
        Joseph Nuzman <joseph.nuzman@intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:59 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 18 2022 at 15:48, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 2:18 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:44:14PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> > And we need input from the Clang folks because their CFI work also puts
> >> > stuff in front of the function entry, which nicely collides.
> >>
> >> Right, I need to go look at the latest kCFI patches, that sorta got
> >> side-tracked for working on all the retbleed muck :/
> >>
> >> Basically kCFI wants to preface every (indirect callable) function with:
> >>
> >> __cfi_\func:
> >>         int3
> >>         movl $0x12345678, %rax
> >>         int3
> >>         int3
> >> \func:
> >
> > Yes, and in order to avoid scattering the code with call target
> > gadgets, the preamble should remain immediately before the function.
> >
> >> Ofc, we can still put the whole:
> >>
> >>         sarq    $5, PER_CPU_VAR(__x86_call_depth);
> >>         jmp     \func_direct
> >>
> >> thing in front of that.
> >
> > Sure, that would work.
> >
> >> But it does somewhat destroy the version I had that only needs the
> >> 10 bytes padding for the sarq.
> >
> > There's also the question of how function alignment should work in the
> > KCFI case. Currently, the __cfi_ preamble is 16-byte aligned, which
> > obviously means the function itself isn't.
>
> That's bad. The function entry should be 16 byte aligned and as I just
> learned for AMD the ideal alignment would be possibly 32 byte as that's
> their I-fetch width. But my experiments with 16 bytes alignment
> independent of the padding muck is benefitial for both AMD and Intel
> over the 4 byte alignment we have right now.

OK, that's what I thought. KCFI hasn't landed in Clang yet, so it
shouldn't be a problem to fix this.

Sami