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 18:55:56 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        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 Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 09:28:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 10:45:15AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > I'm digging through the macros to sort this out, but IIUC, an example of
> > the problem is:
> > 
> 
> > so the caller is expecting "unsigned int (*)(void)" but the prototype
> > of __static_call_return0 is "long (*)(void)":
> > 
> > long __static_call_return0(void);
> > 
> > Could we simply declare a type-matched ret0 trampoline too?
> 
> That'll work for this case, but the next case the function will have
> arguments we'll need even more nonsense...

Shouldn't the typeof() work there too, though? I.e. as long as the
return value can hold a "0", it'd work.

> And as stated in that other email, there's tb_stub_func() having the
> exact same problem as well.

Yeah, I'd need to go look at that again.

> The x86_64 CFI patches had a work-around for this, that could trivially
> be lifted I suppose.

Yeah, I think it'd be similar. I haven't had a chance to go look at that
again...

-- 
Kees Cook