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  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, 30 Oct 2021 20:02:49 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <>,
        Mark Rutland <>, X86 ML <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <>,
        Nathan Chancellor <>,
        Nick Desaulniers <>,
        Sedat Dilek <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 07:19:53PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> I just realized that arm64 has the exact same problem, which is not
> being addressed by my v5 of the static call support patch.

Yeah, it would.

> As it turns out, the v11 Clang that I have been testing with is broken
> wrt BTI landing pads, and omits them from the jump table entries.
> Clang 12+ adds them properly, which means that both the jump table
> entry and the static call trampoline may start with BTI C + direct
> branch, and we also need additional checks to disambiguate.

I'm not sure, why would the static_call trampoline need a BTI C ? The
whole point of static_call() is to be a direct call, we should never
have an indirect call to the trampoline, that would defeat the whole

Powered by blists - more mailing lists