[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202205141453.44171359E3@keescook>
Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 14:54:01 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
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@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/21] arm64: Drop unneeded __nocfi attributes
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 01:21:49PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> With -fsanitize=kcfi, CONFIG_CFI_CLANG no longer has issues
> with address space confusion in functions that switch to linear
> mapping. Now that the indirectly called assembly functions have
> type annotations, drop the __nocfi attributes.
>
> Suggested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
It looks like there are still other cases that continue to require
__nocfi, yes? It looks like after this series, it's still BPF?
Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists