[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220714185605.jo5iubnsgz6jr2wb@treble>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:56:05 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Allow for exclusions in checking RETHUNK
On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:50:08AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 09:18:12AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 04:55:56PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Here's the ANNOTATE_UNSAFE_RET idea.
> >
> > Right, I suppose that strictly speaking the compiler can do whatever and
> > there's no actual guarantee the annotation hits the RET instruction, in
> > practise it should work, esp. since noinstr.
>
> Hm, KASAN is introducing a weird function, resulting in a naked return
> warning since we have RETHUNK_CFLAGS removed on that file.
>
> 0000000000000000 <_sub_I_00099_0>:
> 0: e8 00 00 00 00 call 5 <_sub_I_00099_0+0x5> 1: R_X86_64_PLT32 __tsan_init-0x4
> 5: c3 ret
>
>
> Looks like the "KASAN_SANITIZE_rodata.o := n" isn't working somehow?
Oh never mind, I got KASAN/KCSCAN mixed up. Needs both disabled :-/
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists