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, 21 Jun 2023 20:16:59 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.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: <20230621181659.GB4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230615193546.949657149@infradead.org>
 <20230615193722.127844423@infradead.org>
 <202306201455.AF16F617A@keescook>
 <20230621085217.GI2046280@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20230621092759.GJ2046280@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <202306211107.4D529222C@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202306211107.4D529222C@keescook>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 11:08:46AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:

> Ah yeah, it should be direct-called only. I keep forgetting about the
> endbr removal pass.
> 
> > I can't seem to manage to have it clobber it's __cfi hash value. Ideally
> > we'd have an attribute to force the thing to 0 or something.
> 
> Doesn't objtool have logic to figure out this is only ever
> direct-called?

It does; let me also use that same thing to clobber the kCFI hashes for
these functions.