[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202509050907.DE9A5ED2@keescook>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2025 09:19:29 -0700
From: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@...cle.com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@...il.com>,
Richard Biener <rguenther@...e.de>,
Joseph Myers <josmyers@...hat.com>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@....cz>,
Richard Earnshaw <richard.earnshaw@....com>,
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@....com>,
Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcroft@....com>,
Kyrylo Tkachov <kyrylo.tkachov@....com>,
Kito Cheng <kito.cheng@...il.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Andrew Waterman <andrew@...ive.com>,
Jim Wilson <jim.wilson.gcc@...il.com>,
Dan Li <ashimida.1990@...il.com>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Ramon de C Valle <rcvalle@...gle.com>,
Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>, gcc-patches@....gnu.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] kcfi: Add core Kernel Control Flow Integrity
infrastructure
On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 10:51:03AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 05:24:10PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > +- The check-call instruction sequence must be treated a single unit: it
> > + cannot be rearranged or split or optimized. The pattern is that
> > + indirect calls, "call *$target", get converted into:
> > +
> > + mov $target_expression, %target ; only present if the expression was
> > + ; not already %target register
> > + load -$offset(%target), %tmp ; load the typeid hash at target
> > + cmp $hash, %tmp ; compare expected typeid with loaded
> > + je .Lcheck_passed ; jump to the indirect call
> > + .Lkcfi_trap$N: ; label of trap insn
> > + trap ; trap on failure, but arranged so
> > + ; "permissive mode" falls through
> > + .Lkcfi_call$N: ; label of call insn
> > + call *%target ; actual indirect call
> > +
> > + This pattern of call immediately after trap provides for the
> > + "permissive" checking mode automatically: the trap gets handled,
> > + a warning emitted, and then execution continues after the trap to
> > + the call.
>
> I know it is far too late to do anything here. But I've recently dug
> through a bunch of optimization manual and the like and that Jcc is
> about as bad as it gets :/
>
> The old optimization manual states that forward jumps are assumed
> not-taken; while backward jumps are assumed taken.
>
> The new wisdom is that any Jcc must be assumed not-taken; that is, the
> fallthrough case has the best throughput.
I would expect the cmp to be the slowest part of this sequence, and I
figured the both the trap and the call to be speculation barriers? I'm
not sure, though. Is changing the sequence actually useful?
> Here we have a forward branch which is assumed taken :-(
The constraints we have are:
- Linux x86 KCFI trap handler decodes the instructions from the trap
backwards, but it uses exact offsets (-12 and -6).
- Control flow following the trap must make the call (for warn-only mode)
If we change this, we'd need to make the insn decoder smarter to likey
look at the insn AFTER the trap ("is it a direct jump?")
And then use this, which is ugly, but matches second constraint:
cmp $hash %tmp
jne .Ltrap
.Lcall:
call *%target
jmp .Ldone
.Ltrap:
ud2
jmp .Lcall
.Ldone:
+4 bytes for x86_64
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists