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]

Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 22:51:52 +0100
From:   Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 24/03/2021 18.33, 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 :-)

I know, but so far x86 is the only one with HAVE_STATIC_CALL, so for
arm64 which is where CFI seems to be targeted initially, static_calls
are function pointers. And unless CFI ignores the return type, I'd
really expect the above to fail.

> But I think some of this code might need some __va_function() love when
> combined with CFI.

Well, that was also my first thought when reading through the CFI
patches, I hoped that might salvage my
reduce-boilerplate-and-get-better-type-safety proposal for the
devm_*_action APIs [1]. But I don't think that would help at all;
storing __va_function(__static_call_return0) instead of
&__static_call_return0  (i.e., __static_call_return0 instead of
__static_call_return0.cfi_jt) doesn't help the call sites of that
static_call at all, neither address belongs to the range of jump table
entries corresponding to the prototype "int (*)(void)". So I think it
would be the static_call macro that would somehow need to grow a way to
suppress the cfi checking.

Rasmus

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210309235917.2134565-1-linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk/