[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211027131730.GF54628@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 14:17:30 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>,
"ardb@...nel.org" <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] x86: Add support for Clang CFI
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 12:55:17PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Mark Rutland
> > Sent: 27 October 2021 13:05
> ...
> > Taking a step back, it'd be nicer if we didn't have the jump-table shim
> > at all, and had some SW landing pad (e.g. a NOP with some magic bytes)
> > in the callees that the caller could check for. Then function pointers
> > would remain callable in call cases, and we could explcitly add landing
> > pads to asm to protect those. I *think* that's what the grsecurity folk
> > do, but I could be mistaken.
>
> It doesn't need to be a 'landing pad'.
> The 'magic value' could be at 'label - 8'.
Sure; I'd intended to mean the general case of something at some fixed
offset from the entrypoint, either before or after, potentially but not
necessarily inline in the executed instruction stream.
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists