[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220221100615.GK23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2022 11:06:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, joao@...rdrivepizza.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
jpoimboe@...hat.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
samitolvanen@...gle.com, mark.rutland@....com,
alyssa.milburn@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/29] x86: Disable IBT around firmware
Could you trim replies so that I can actually find what you write?
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:27:20AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_X86_IBT
> >+
> >+u64 ibt_save(void)
> >+{
> >+ u64 msr = 0;
> >+
> >+ if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT)) {
> >+ rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_S_CET, msr);
> >+ wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_S_CET, msr & ~CET_ENDBR_EN);
> >+ }
> >+
> >+ return msr;
> >+}
> >+
> >+void ibt_restore(u64 save)
>
> Please make these both __always_inline so there no risk of them ever gaining ENDBRs and being used by ROP to disable IBT...
Either that or mark them __noendbr. The below seems to work.
Do we have a preference?
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ibt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ibt.h
@@ -48,8 +48,8 @@ static inline bool is_endbr(const void *
return val == gen_endbr64();
}
-extern u64 ibt_save(void);
-extern void ibt_restore(u64 save);
+extern __noendbr u64 ibt_save(void);
+extern __noendbr void ibt_restore(u64 save);
#else /* __ASSEMBLY__ */
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
@@ -596,7 +596,7 @@ __setup("nopku", setup_disable_pku);
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_IBT
-u64 ibt_save(void)
+__noendbr u64 ibt_save(void)
{
u64 msr = 0;
@@ -608,7 +608,7 @@ u64 ibt_save(void)
return msr;
}
-void ibt_restore(u64 save)
+__noendbr void ibt_restore(u64 save)
{
u64 msr;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists