[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABCJKuciRBnz4JxBDJC=+kuJn4pU2uBkWPBov7-VL2o2j0F4SA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 13:38:18 -0800
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
hjl.tools@...il.com, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
andrew.cooper3@...rix.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] objtool: Add IBT validation / fixups
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 5:38 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> I think we'll end up with something related to KCFI, but with distinct
> differences:
>
> - 32bit immediates for smaller code
Sure, I don't see issues with that. Based on a quick test with
defconfig, this reduces vmlinux size by 0.30%.
> - __kcfi_check_fail() is out for smaller code
I'm fine with adding a trap mode that's used by default, but having
more helpful diagnostics when something fails is useful even in
production systems in my experience. This change results in a vmlinux
that's another 0.92% smaller.
> Which then yields:
>
> caller:
> cmpl $0xdeadbeef, -0x4(%rax) # 7 bytes
> je 1f # 2 bytes
> ud2 # 2 bytes
> 1: call __x86_indirect_thunk_rax # 5 bytes
Note that the compiler might not emit this *exact* sequence of
instructions. For example, Clang generates this for events_sysfs_show
with the modified KCFI patch:
2274: cmpl $0x4d7bed9e,-0x4(%r11)
227c: jne 22c0 <events_sysfs_show+0x6c>
227e: call 2283 <events_sysfs_show+0x2f>
227f: R_X86_64_PLT32 __x86_indirect_thunk_r11-0x4
...
22c0: ud2
In this case the function has two indirect calls and Clang seems to
prefer to emit just one ud2.
> .align 16
> .byte 0xef, 0xbe, 0xad, 0xde # 4 bytes
> func:
> endbr # 4 bytes
Here func is no longer aligned to 16 bytes, in case that's important.
> Further, Andrew put in the request for __attribute__((cfi_seed(blah)))
> to allow distinguishing indirect functions with otherwise identical
> signature; eg. cookie = hash32(blah##signature).
Sounds reasonable.
> Did I miss anything? Got anything wrong?
How would you like to deal with the 4-byte hashes in objtool? We
either need to annotate all function symbols in the kernel, or we need
a way to distinguish the hashes from random instructions, so we can
also have functions that don't have a type hash.
Sami
Powered by blists - more mailing lists