linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls

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]

Date:   Sun, 11 Nov 2018 15:25:25 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Static calls

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 02:42:55PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On 11 November 2018 at 00:20, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:50:27PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On 9 November 2018 at 08:28, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> >> >> - I'm not sure about the objtool approach.  Objtool is (currently)
> >> >>   x86-64 only, which means we have to use the "unoptimized" version
> >> >>   everywhere else.  I may experiment with a GCC plugin instead.
> >> >
> >> > I'd prefer the objtool approach. It's a pretty reliable first-principles
> >> > approach while GCC plugin would have to be replicated for Clang and any
> >> > other compilers, etc.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I implemented the GCC plugin approach here for arm64
> >
> > I'm confused; I though we only needed objtool for variable instruction
> > length architectures, because we can't reliably decode our instruction
> > stream. Otherwise we can fairly trivially use the DWARF relocation data,
> > no?
> 
> How would that work? We could build vmlinux with --emit-relocs, filter
> out the static jump/call relocations and resolve the symbol names to
> filter the ones associated with calls to trampolines. But then, we
> have to build the static_call_sites section and reinject it back into
> the image in some way, which is essentially objtool, no?

It's a _much_ simpler tool than objtool, but yes, we need a tool that
reads the relocation stuff and (re)injects it in a new section -- we
don't need it on a vmlinux level, it can be done per TU.

Anyway, a GCC plugin (I still have to have a peek at your thing) sounds
like it should work just fine too.