linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] workqueue: use WARN_ON_FUNCTION

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:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:38:12 -0700
From:   Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
        PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/17] workqueue: use WARN_ON_FUNCTION_MISMATCH

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:50 AM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:11 AM Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > With CONFIG_CFI_CLANG, a callback function passed to
> > __queue_delayed_work from a module points to a jump table entry
> > defined in the module instead of the one used in the core kernel,
> > which breaks function address equality in this check:
> >
> >   WARN_ON_ONCE(timer->function != delayed_work_timer_fn);
> >
> > Use WARN_ON_FUNCTION_MISMATCH() instead to disable the warning
> > when CFI and modules are both enabled.
>
> Does __cficanonical help with such comparisons? Or would that be a
> very invasive change, if the concern was to try to keep these checks
> in place for CONFIG_CFI_CLANG?

The last time I checked, Clang ignored the __cficanonical attribute in
header files, which means it would still generate a local jump table
entry in each module for such functions, and the comparison here would
fail. We could avoid the issue by using __cficanonical for the
callback function *and* using __va_function() when we take the
function address in modules, but that feels way too invasive for this
particular use case.

Sami