lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 00:26:56 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <>,
Cc:     Kees Cook <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Sedat Dilek <>,,,,
        Sami Tolvanen <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/15] x86: Avoid CFI jump tables in IDT and entry points

On Fri, Apr 16 2021 at 13:38, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> With CONFIG_CFI_CLANG, the compiler replaces function addresses in C
> code with jump table addresses.


> To avoid referring to jump tables in entry code with PTI,

What has this to do with PTI?

> disable CFI for IDT and paravirt code, and use function_nocfi() to
> prevent jump table addresses from being added to the IDT or system
> call entry points.

How does this changelog make sense for anyone not familiar with the
matter at hand?

Where is the analysis why excluding 

> +CFLAGS_REMOVE_paravirt.o	:= $(CC_FLAGS_CFI)

all of idt.c and paravirt.c is correct and how that is going to be
correct in the future?

These files are excluded from CFI, so I can add whatever I want to them
and circumvent the purpose of CFI, right?

Brilliant plan that. But I know, sekurity ...



Powered by blists - more mailing lists