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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 01:02:49 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <>
To:     Kees Cook <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <>,
        Sami Tolvanen <>,
        X86 ML <>, Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Sedat Dilek <>,,
        LKML <>,
        clang-built-linux <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] x86: Implement function_nocfi

On Fri, Apr 16 2021 at 15:37, Kees Cook wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:20:17PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> But obviously there is code that needs real function pointers.  How
>> about making this a first-class feature, or at least hacking around it
>> more cleanly.  For example, what does this do:
>> char entry_whatever[];
>> wrmsrl(..., (unsigned long)entry_whatever);
> This is just casting. It'll still resolve to the jump table entry.
>> or, alternatively,
>> extern void func() __attribute__((nocfi));
> __nocfi says func() should not perform checking of correct jump table
> membership for indirect calls.
> But we don't want a global marking for a function to be ignored by CFI;
> we don't want functions to escape CFI -- we want specific _users_ to
> either not check CFI for indirect calls (__nocfi) or we want specific
> passed addresses to avoid going through the jump table
> (function_nocfi()).

And that's why you mark entire files to be exempt without any rationale
why it makes sense.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists