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  linux-cve-announce  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, 30 Apr 2022 11:02:05 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Kees Cook <>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Catalin Marinas <>,
        Sami Tolvanen <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Joao Moreira <>,
        Sedat Dilek <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21] KCFI support

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:53:12PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 01:36:23PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > KCFI is a proposed forward-edge control-flow integrity scheme for
> > Clang, which is more suitable for kernel use than the existing CFI
> > scheme used by CONFIG_CFI_CLANG. KCFI doesn't require LTO, doesn't
> > alter function references to point to a jump table, and won't break
> > function address equality.
> 🎉 :)
> > The latest LLVM patches are here:
> > 
> >
> >
> > 
> > [...]
> > To test this series, you'll need to compile your own Clang toolchain
> > with the patches linked above. You can also find the complete source
> > tree here:
> > 
> >
> And note that this RFC is seeking to break a bit of a circular dependency
> with regard to the design of __builtin_kcfi_call_unchecked (D124211
> above), as the implementation has gone around a few times in review within
> LLVM, and we want to make sure that kernel folks are okay with what was
> settled on. If there are no objections on the kernel side, then we can
> land the KCFI patches, as this is basically the only remaining blocker.

So aside from the static_call usage, was there any other?

Anyway, I think I hate that __builtin, I'd *much* rather see a variable
attribute or qualifier for this, such that one can mark a function
pointer as not doing CFI.

I simply doesn't make sense to have a builtin that operates on an
expression. The whole thing is about indirect calls, IOW function

Powered by blists - more mailing lists