linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] static_call: fix function type mismatch

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]

Message-ID: <YFuP9sRT8tYShLUm@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 20:16:06 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <rasmus.villemoes@...vas.dk>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call: fix function type mismatch

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 06:33:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 05:45:52PM +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > Sorry, I think I misread the code. The static calls are indeed
> > initialized with a function with the right prototype. Try adding
> > "preempt=full" on the command line so that we exercise these lines
> > 
> >                static_call_update(cond_resched,
> > (typeof(&__cond_resched)) __static_call_return0);
> >                 static_call_update(might_resched,
> > (typeof(&__cond_resched)) __static_call_return0);
> > 
> > I would expect that to blow up, since we end up calling a long (*)(void)
> > function using a function pointer of type int (*)(void).
> 
> Note that on x86 there won't actually be any calling of function
> pointers. See what arch/x86/kernel/static_call.c does :-)
> 
> But I think some of this code might need some __va_function() love when
> combined with CFI.
> 
> But yes, this is why I think something like -fcdecl might be a good
> idea, that ought to tell the compiler about the calling convention,
> which ought to be enough for the compiler to figure out that this magic
> really is ok.
> 
> Notable things we rely on:
> 
>  - caller cleanup of stack; the function caller sets up any stack
>    arguments and is also responsible for cleanin up the stack once the
>    function returns.

  - the arguments are pushed on stack right to left;

>  - the return value is in a register.
> 
> Per the first we can call a function that has a partial (empty per
> extremum) argument list. 

That extra constraint is required to make partial args work; as it
happens we only use empty args, and as such don't really care about this
atm.

> Per the second we can call a function with a
> different return type as long as they all fit in the same register.
> 
> The calling of a 'long (*)()' function for a 'int (*)()' type then
> becomes idential to something like: 'int x = (long)y', and that is
> something C is perfectly fine with.
> 
> We then slightly push things with the other __static_call_return0()
> usage in the kernel, where we basically end up with: 'void *x =
> (long)y', which is something C really rather would have a cast on.