[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ea50c51ee8db366430c9dc697a83923@overdrivepizza.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 21:18:44 -0800
From: Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
hjl.tools@...il.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ndesaulniers@...gle.com, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] objtool: Add IBT validation / fixups
> Ah, excellent, thanks for the pointers. There's also this in the works:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D119296 (a new CFI mode, designed to play nice
> to objtool, IBT, etc.)
Oh, great! Thanks for pointing it out. I guess I saw something with a
similar name before ;)
https://www.blackhat.com/docs/asia-17/materials/asia-17-Moreira-Drop-The-Rop-Fine-Grained-Control-Flow-Integrity-For-The-Linux-Kernel.pdf
Jokes aside (and perhaps questions more targeted to Sami), from a
diagonal look it seems that this follows the good old tag approach
proposed by PaX/grsecurity, right? If this is the case, should I assume
it could also benefit from features like -mibt-seal? Also are you
considering that perhaps we can use alternatives to flip different CFI
instrumentation as suggested by PeterZ in another thread?
Tks,
Joao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists