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:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 14:56:22 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, alyssa.milburn@linux.intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, samitolvanen@google.com,
        jpoimboe@kernel.org, joao@overdrivepizza.com,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/cfi: Fix ret_from_fork indirect calls
Message-ID: <202306201455.AF16F617A@keescook>
References: <20230615193546.949657149@infradead.org>
 <20230615193722.127844423@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230615193722.127844423@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 09:35:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The ret_from_fork stub does an indirect call to the kthread function,
> but only knows about Retpolines. Instead of making the asm more
> complicated, punt to C and let the compiler figure it out.
> 
> Specifically, this makes it a proper kCFI indirect call when needed (in
> fact, it is nearly impossible to code a kCFI indirect call in asm).
> 
> This was the only callsite that was still calling func()+0 on regular
> indirect functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

I worry this creates a calling gadget, but I don't think it really
counts since it's just converting between two prototypes. Regardless:

Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

-- 
Kees Cook