linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: Wrap '--pic-veneer' with ld-option

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:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:09:56 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: Wrap '--pic-veneer' with ld-option

(+ Arnd)

On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 09:06, Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 08:37:05AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 02:42, Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This flag is not supported by lld:
> > >
> > >     ld.lld: error: unknown argument: --pic-veneer
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
> >
> > Hi Nate,
> >
> > Does this mean ld.lld is guaranteed to produce position independent
> > veneers if you build kernels that are bigger than the typical range of
> > a relative branch?
> >
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> Honestly, I'm not quite sure. I saw your commit that introduced this
> flag and I wasn't quite sure what to make of it for lld. What
> configuration would I use to verify and what would I check for?
>

Try building allyesconfig, and check the resulting binary for veneers
(which have 'veneer' in the symbol name, at least when ld.bfd emits
them). These veneers should not take the [virtual] address of the
branch target directly, but take a PC relative offset (as in the
example in the commit log of that patch you are referring to)

> Additionally, I have filed an LLVM bug for the lld developers to
> check and see if this is a flag they should support:
>
> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39886
>
> Thanks for the quick reply,
> Nathan
>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/Makefile | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Makefile b/arch/arm/Makefile
> > > index e2a0baf36766..4fab2aa29570 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/Makefile
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/Makefile
> > > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
> > >  #
> > >  # Copyright (C) 1995-2001 by Russell King
> > >
> > > -LDFLAGS_vmlinux        := --no-undefined -X --pic-veneer
> > > +LDFLAGS_vmlinux        := --no-undefined -X $(call ld-option,--pic-veneer)
> > >  ifeq ($(CONFIG_CPU_ENDIAN_BE8),y)
> > >  LDFLAGS_vmlinux        += --be8
> > >  KBUILD_LDFLAGS_MODULE  += --be8
> > > --
> > > 2.20.0.rc1
> > >