[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YEudhOlCk5ZUb8v9@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:57:40 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@...el.com>,
Haitao Huang <haitao.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 8/8] x86/vdso: Add ENDBR64 to __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 06:55:57PM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 03:20:20PM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 3/10/21 2:55 PM, Yu, Yu-cheng wrote:
> > > On 3/10/2021 2:39 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:05:19PM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > >>> When CET is enabled, __vdso_sgx_enter_enclave() needs an endbr64
> > >>> in the beginning of the function.
> > >>
> > >> OK.
> > >>
> > >> What you should do is to explain what it does and why it's needed.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The endbr marks a branch target. Without the "no-track" prefix, if an
> > > indirect call/jmp reaches a non-endbr opcode, a control-protection fault
> > > is raised. Usually endbr's are inserted by the compiler. For assembly,
> > > these have to be put in manually. I will add this in the commit log if
> > > there is another revision. Thanks!
> >
> > This is close, but it's missing a detail or two that I think is
> > important for someone like Jarkko trying to figure out what it means for
> > his subsystem or driver.
> >
> > I'd probably say:
> >
> > ENDBR is a special new instruction for the Indirect Branch Tracking
> > (IBR) component of CET. IBT prevents attacks by ensuring that (most)
> > indirect branches and function calls may only land at ENDBR
> > instructions. Branches that don't follow the rules will result in
> > control flow (#CF) exceptions.
> >
> > ENDBR is a noop when IBT is unsupported or disabled. Most ENDBR
> > instructions are inserted automatically by the compiler, but branch
> > targets written in assembly must have ENDBR added manually, like this one.
>
> Thank you, this clears the whole thing a lot.
>
> Doesn't this mean that it could be there just as well unconditionally?
Please, ignore the question (got the answer).
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists