linux-hardening - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/20] KCFI support

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <20220719133645.GA14089@willie-the-truck>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jul 2022 14:36:45 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 00/20] KCFI support

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:04:12AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 04:34:53PM -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 patch is here:
> > 
> >   https://reviews.llvm.org/D119296
> > 
> > This RFC series replaces the current arm64 CFI implementation with
> > KCFI and adds support for x86_64.
> 
> I think the "RFC" prefix for this series can be dropped. :)
> 
> It looks to me like all of Peter's concerns have been addressed. I'd say
> let's get the Clang side landed, and once that's done, land this via x86
> -tip?
> 
> Peter and Will does this sound right to you? It touches arm64, so if
> -tip isn't okay, I could take it in one of my trees?

The arm64 bits look fine to me. Please just check if it conflicts horribly
with -next so that we have a chance to figure out a shared branch if
necessary.

Will