Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 16:24:48 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Matthew Maurer <mmaurer@google.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>, Gary Guo <gary@garyguo.net>,
        =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>,
        Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org,
        "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Enable IBT in Rust if enabled in C
Message-ID: <20231010142448.GN377@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20231009224347.2076221-1-mmaurer@google.com>
 <20231010081220.GD377@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAGSQo01=NRosJCzRCWcqZfvdHzH+d6dThN02SpvkF2EHsFXD-g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGSQo01=NRosJCzRCWcqZfvdHzH+d6dThN02SpvkF2EHsFXD-g@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 07:06:32AM -0700, Matthew Maurer wrote:

> > > +KBUILD_RUSTFLAGS += -Zcf-protection=branch -Zno-jump-tables
> >
> > One question, -Zcf-protection=branch, will that ever emit NOTRACK
> > prefix? The kernel very explicitly does not support (enable) NOTRACK.

> rustc does this via LLVM, so its code generation works very similarly to clang.
> It does not create its own explicit NOTRACKs, but LLVM will by default
> with just -Zcf-protection-branch.
> I've linked a godbolt showing that at least for the basic case, your
> no-jump-tables approach from clang ports over.
> https://godbolt.org/z/bc4n6sq5q
> Whether rust generates NOTRACK should end up being roughly equivalent
> to whether clang generates it, and if LLVM gains a code generation
> flag for NOTRACK being disallowed some day, we can pass that through
> as well.

IIRC C++ will also emit NOTRACK for things like catch/throw and other
stack/scope unwinds. Obviously C doesn't have that, but does Rust? (as
might be obvious, I *really* don't know the language).

ISTR HJL had a GCC patch to force-disable NOTRACK, but I've no idea what
happened to that.