[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABCJKue6c0FMpKXysdoT0Lc+RBqGFhp52iM03tttWwRv7CZr5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2022 09:51:39 -0700
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Joao Moreira <joao@...rdrivepizza.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/21] treewide: Drop function_nocfi
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 9:30 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> I also believe that in most cases we can drop the __nocfi annotation on callers
> now that we can mark the called assembly function with SYM_TYPED_FUNC_START().
Good point, thanks for pointing that out. I'll add these to the next
version of the series.
> There' a latent bug here with the existing CFI scheme, since
> `kpti_install_ng_mappings` isn't marked with __nocfi, and should explode when
> calling `idmap_kpti_install_ng_mappings` via the idmap.
The CONFIG_UNMAP_KERNEL_AT_EL0 version of kpti_install_ng_mappings is
marked __nocfi
> There' a latent bug here with the existing CFI scheme, since
> `machine_kexec` isn't marked with __nocfi, and should explode when calling
> `cpu_soft_restart` via the idmap.
But it's indeed missing from this one.
Sami
Powered by blists - more mailing lists