linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 09/17] perf/core: Use static_call to optimize perf_guest_info

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:   Sun, 6 Feb 2022 14:08:30 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        kvmarm <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/17] perf/core: Use static_call to optimize
 perf_guest_info_callbacks

On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 09:35:49AM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 10:43 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(__perf_guest_state, *perf_guest_cbs->state);
> > > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(__perf_guest_get_ip, *perf_guest_cbs->get_ip);
> > > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0(__perf_guest_handle_intel_pt_intr, *perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr);
> >
> > Using __static_call_return0() makes clang's CFI sad on arm64 due to the resulting
> > function prototype mistmatch, which IIUC, is verified by clang's __cfi_check()
> > for indirect calls, i.e. architectures without CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL.
> >
> > We could fudge around the issue by using stubs, massaging prototypes, etc..., but
> > that means doing that for every arch-agnostic user of __static_call_return0().
> >
> > Any clever ideas?  Can we do something like generate a unique function for every
> > DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_RET0 for CONFIG_HAVE_STATIC_CALL=n, e.g. using typeof() to
> > get the prototype?
> 
> I'm not sure there's a clever fix for this. On architectures without
> HAVE_STATIC_CALL, this is an indirect call to a function with a
> mismatching type, which CFI is intended to catch.
> 
> The obvious way to solve the problem would be to use a stub function
> with the correct type, which I agree, isn't going to scale. You can
> alternatively check if .func points to __static_call_return0 and not
> make the indirect call if it does. If neither of these options are
> feasible, you can disable CFI checking in the functions that have
> these static calls using the __nocfi attribute.

There's also the tp_stub_func() thing that does basically the same
thing.