linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/15] x86: Implement 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]

Message-ID: <875z0ltdv8.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 12:16:43 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/15] x86: Implement function_nocfi

On Sat, Apr 17 2021 at 01:02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16 2021 at 15:37, Kees Cook wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:20:17PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> But obviously there is code that needs real function pointers.  How
>>> about making this a first-class feature, or at least hacking around it
>>> more cleanly.  For example, what does this do:
>>> 
>>> char entry_whatever[];
>>> wrmsrl(..., (unsigned long)entry_whatever);
>>
>> This is just casting. It'll still resolve to the jump table entry.
>>
>>> or, alternatively,
>>> 
>>> extern void func() __attribute__((nocfi));
>>
>> __nocfi says func() should not perform checking of correct jump table
>> membership for indirect calls.
>>
>> But we don't want a global marking for a function to be ignored by CFI;
>> we don't want functions to escape CFI -- we want specific _users_ to
>> either not check CFI for indirect calls (__nocfi) or we want specific
>> passed addresses to avoid going through the jump table
>> (function_nocfi()).
>
> And that's why you mark entire files to be exempt without any rationale
> why it makes sense.

The reason why you have to do that is because function_nocfi() is not
provided by the compiler.

So you need to hack around that with that macro which fails to work
e.g. for the idt data arrays.

Is there any fundamental reason why the compiler does not provide that
in a form which allows to use it everywhere?

It's not too much asked from a tool which provides new functionality to
provide it in a way which is usable.

Thanks,

        tglx