linux-kernel - violating function pointer signature

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:21:36 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: violating function pointer signature

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 03:34:51PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > > Since all tracepoints callbacks have at least one parameter (__data), we
> > > could declare tp_stub_func as:
> > > 
> > > static void tp_stub_func(void *data, ...)
> > > {
> > >	return;
> > > }
> > > 
> > > And now C knows that tp_stub_func() can be called with one or more
> > > parameters, and had better be able to deal with it!  
> > 
> > AFAIU this won't work.
> > 
> > C99 6.5.2.2 Function calls
> > 
> > "If the function is defined with a type that is not compatible with the type (of the
> > expression) pointed to by the expression that denotes the called function, the behavior is
> > undefined."
> 
> But is it really a problem in practice. I'm sure we could create an objtool
> function to check to make sure we don't break anything at build time.

I think that as long as the function is completely empty (it never
touches any of the arguments) this should work in practise.

That is:

  void tp_nop_func(void) { }

can be used as an argument to any function pointer that has a void
return. In fact, I already do that, grep for __static_call_nop().

I'm not sure what the LLVM-CFI crud makes of it, but that's their
problem.