[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4553dfb68285a686737969e117bf48cc@overdrivepizza.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:38:33 -0800
From: Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
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
>>
>> Mostly so that we can deduce the address of the trap from the
>> retpoline
>> site, also the above has a fairly high chance of using jcc.d32 which
>> is
>> actually larger than jcc.d8+ud2.
>
> Ah, yeah, that's an interesting point.
>
> Still, I worry about finding ways to convinces Clang to emit precisely
> cmp/je/trap/call, but I guess we'll catch it immediately if it doesn't.
> :P
This can probably be done more easily/precisely if implemented directly
in the compiler's arch-specific backend. At least for x86 it wasn't a
hassle to emit a defined sequence of instructions in the past. The price
is that it will require a pass specific to each supported architecture,
but I guess this isn't that bad.
Perhaps this is discussion for a different mailing list, idk... but
just pointing that it is not a huge wall.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists