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]

Date:   Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:11:32 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        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 4:53 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 17 2021 at 16:19, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 4:40 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> >> Okay, you're saying you want __builtin_gimme_body_p() to be a constant
> >> expression for the compiler, not inline asm?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > I admit that, in the trivial case where the asm code is *not* a
> > C-ABI-compliant function, giving a type that doesn't fool the compiler
> > into thinking that it might be is probably the best fix.  Maybe we
> > should standardize something, e.g.:
> >
> > struct raw_symbol;  /* not defined anywhere */
> > #define DECLARE_RAW_SYMBOL(x) struct raw_symbol x[]
> >
> > and then we write this:
> >
> > DECLARE_RAW_SYMBOL(entry_SYSCALL_64);
> >
> > wrmsrl(..., (unsigned long)entry_SYSCALL_64);
> >
> > It would be a bit nifty if we didn't need a forward declaration, but
> > I'm not immediately seeing a way to do this without hacks that we'll
> > probably regret;
> >
> > But this doesn't help the case in which the symbol is an actual
> > C-callable function and we want to be able to call it, too.
>
> The right way to solve this is that the compiler provides a builtin
>
>  function_nocfi() +/- the naming bikeshed
>
> which works for
>
>       foo = function_nocfi(bar);

I agree in general.  But right now, we have, in asm/proto.h:

void entry_SYSCALL_64(void);

and that's pure nonsense.  Depending on your point of view,
entry_SYSCALL_64 is a symbol that resolves to an integer or it's an
array of bytes containing instructions, but it is most definitely not
a function void (void).  So, regardless of any CFI stuff, I propose
that we standardize our handling of prototypes of symbols that are
opaque to the C compiler.  Here are a couple of choices:

Easy one:

extern u8 entry_SYSCALL_64[];

Slightly more complicated:

struct opaque_symbol;
extern struct opaque_symbol entry_SYSCALL_64;

The opaque_symbol variant avoids any possible confusion over the weird
status of arrays in C, and it's hard to misuse, since struct
opaque_symbol is an incomplete type.

--Andy