lists.openwall.net | 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 10:26:29 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.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 Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, llvm@...ts.linux.dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/15] x86: Add support for Clang CFI On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:29:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Now, since code (on x86) is variable length, there are no spare bits in > the code address, but since static_call_key is aligned, we have spare > bits. It is those bits we use to encode TAIL (Bit0) and INIT (Bit1). > > If INIT, the address points to an __init section and we shouldn't try > and touch if after those have been freed or bad stuff happens. > > If TAIL, it's a tail-call and we get to write a jump instruction instead > of a call instruction. I think this is the part that I was missing: the information is about the _address_, but it's stored in the _key_'s low bits (regardless of the key's actual/masked key pointer). > [...] > Hope that clarifies things, instead of making it worse :-) It does help, yes, thanks! I will need to read it again and go follow along in the code, but yes, that helps explain it. -- Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists