[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 4 May 2022 17:28:57 -0700
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, hjl.tools@...il.com,
alyssa.milburn@...ux.intel.com,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
gabriel.gomes@...ux.intel.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/11] x86: kernel FineIBT
On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 11:17 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> __cfi_\sym: __cfi_\sym:
> int3; int3 # 2
> endbr # 4 mov \hash, %eax # 5
> call __fineibt_\hash # 5 int3; int3 # 2
> \sym: \sym:
OK, that looks reasonable to me.
> It seems to preserve the properties of the last one in that direct calls
> will already be correct and we don't need linker fixups, and objtool can
> simply parse the preamble as regular instructions without needing
> further help.
Wouldn't objtool still print out unreachable instruction warnings here?
Sami
Powered by blists - more mailing lists