linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching

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: <20211103083559.GB174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 3 Nov 2021 09:35:59 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.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 Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 05:20:05PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think that's a big mistake -- any sane ENDBR-using scheme would
> really prefer that ENDBR to be right next to the actual function body,
> and really any scheme would benefit due to better cache locality. 

Agreed, IBT/BTI want the landing pad in front of the actual function.

> But, more importantly, IMO any sane ENDBR-using scheme wants to
> generate the indirect stub as part of code gen for the actual
> function.

Sorta, I really want to be able to not have a landing pad for functions
whose address is never taken. At that point it doesn't matter if it gets
generated along with the function and then stripped/poisoned later, or
generated later.

As such, the landing pad should not be part of the function proper,
direct calls should never observe it.

Less landing pads is more better.