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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 31 Oct 2021 17:39:20 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching

On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 05:24:13PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 20:55, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2021 at 20:03, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > > purpose.
> >
> > This might happen when the distance between the caller and the
> > trampoline is more than 128 MB, in which case we emit a veneer that
> > uses an indirect call as well. So we definitely need the landing pad
> > in the trampoline.
> 
> Something like the below seems to work to prevent getting the wrong
> trampoline address into arch_static_call_transform:

Is is also a terriblly gross hack. I really want the clang-cfi stuff to
improve, not add layers of hacks on top of it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists