linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86/entry: Anchor annotation

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: <20220526150407.bsagwksr5osgde62@treble>
Date:   Thu, 26 May 2022 08:04:07 -0700
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        elver@...gle.com, jbaron@...mai.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
        ardb@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] x86/entry: Anchor annotation

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 12:52:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> x86_64-allmodconfig gives:
> 
>   vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: entry_SYSCALL_compat+0x0: ANNOTATE_NOENDBR on ENDBR
> 
> This is due to:
> 
> 	ANNOTATE_NOENDBR
> SYM_CODE_END(entry_SYSENTER_compat)
> SYM_CODE_START(entry_SYSCALL_compat)
> 	UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY
> 	ENDBR
> 
> And the hint then landing on the first instruction of the next symbol,
> which happens to be ENDBR. Stick in an int3 to anchor the annotation
> in the previous symbol.
> 
> Fixes: 3e3f06950434 ("x86/ibt: Annotate text references")
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> ---
>  arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S |    1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_compat.S
> @@ -124,6 +124,7 @@ SYM_INNER_LABEL(entry_SYSENTER_compat_af
>  	jmp	.Lsysenter_flags_fixed
>  SYM_INNER_LABEL(__end_entry_SYSENTER_compat, SYM_L_GLOBAL)
>  	ANNOTATE_NOENDBR // is_sysenter_singlestep
> +	int3
>  SYM_CODE_END(entry_SYSENTER_compat)

Hm, I get the feeling this warning is pretty much useless anyway.  Can
we just get rid of the warning instead?

-- 
Josh