[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202006290742.92EC7235@keescook>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2020 07:43:36 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/17] ctype: Work around Clang
-mbranch-protection=none bug
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 10:15:47AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 08:18, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > In preparation for building efi/libstub with -mbranch-protection=none
> > (EFI does not support branch protection features[1]), add no-op code
> > to work around a Clang bug that emits an unwanted .note.gnu.property
> > section for object files without code[2].
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMj1kXHck12juGi=E=P4hWP_8vQhQ+-x3vBMc3TGeRWdQ-XkxQ@mail.gmail.com
> > [2] https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46480
> >
> > Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
> > Cc: clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > lib/ctype.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/ctype.c b/lib/ctype.c
> > index c819fe269eb2..21245ed57d90 100644
> > --- a/lib/ctype.c
> > +++ b/lib/ctype.c
> > @@ -36,3 +36,13 @@ _L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L, /* 224-239 */
> > _L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_P,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L,_L}; /* 240-255 */
> >
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(_ctype);
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Clang will generate .note.gnu.property sections for object files
> > + * without code, even in the presence of -mbranch-protection=none.
> > + * To work around this, define an unused static function.
> > + * https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46480
> > + */
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CC_IS_CLANG
> > +void __maybe_unused __clang_needs_code_here(void) { }
> > +#endif
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
> I take it we don't need this horrible hack if we build the EFI stub
> with branch protections and filter out the .note.gnu.property section
> explicitly?
Correct.
> Sorry to backpedal, but that is probably a better approach after all,
> given that the instructions don't hurt, and we will hopefully be able
> to arm them once UEFI (as well as PE/COFF) gets around to describing
> this in a way that both the firmware and the OS can consume.
Okay, will revert to the v3 solution.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists