linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 20/21] x86: Add support for CONFIG_CFI

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YoNENqdLBK6tLmpa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 08:44:06 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "x86@...nel.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-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "llvm@...ts.linux.dev" <llvm@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 20/21] x86: Add support for CONFIG_CFI_CLANG

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 03:03:02PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 2:44 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 09:32:55PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> >
> > > > The compiler always generates this specific instruction sequence.
> > >
> > > Yes, but there are several ways to encode 'cmpl imm,-6(reg)'.
> >
> > Yes, but we don't care. This *always* uses the 32bit immediate form.
> > Even if the immediate is small.
> 
> Yes, that part is not a problem, but it's a valid point that LLVM
> might not always use r8-r15 here, so I will have to check for the REX
> prefix before blindly attempting to decode the instruction.

LLVM has always used r11 for indirect calls, will that change?