[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YpItCeLkwme025xD@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 16:09:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.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 2/7] objtool: Extend UNWIND_HINT based ENDBR rules
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:05:49AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 12:52:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Extend the UNWIND hint driven rules for ENDBR placement. Currently
> > objtool expects an ENDBR at any UNWINT_HINT_IRET_REGS that is at +0 of
> > an STB_GLOBAL symbol, with the expectation that this is an exception
> > entry point.
> >
> > Extend this to also expect ENDBR at UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY at +0 for
> > STB_GLOBAL symbols, with the expectation that these are also machine
> > entry points (SYSCALL et. al.).
> >
> > This guarantees all machine entry points are covered by objtool rules at
> > the expense of a few additional false positives:
> >
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: startup_64+0x0: UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY without ENDBR
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: start_cpu0+0x0: UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY without ENDBR
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>
> I can't remember if this was my bright idea, but it feels kind of
> arbitrary. Hopefully there won't be a lot of false positives.
The existing UNWIND_HINT_IRET_REGS at +0 was your idea, I'm just trying
to cover more.
> Anyway, won't SYSCALL-type symbols typically be referenced elsewhere in
> the kernel and thus be found by the regular IBT validation?
They do indeed, and that's what we've been relying on. I just figured it
would be more consistent to have rules covering all machine entry
points.
(also all the Xen entry points are EMPTY like).
> Do you have any examples of where this warning would trigger if there
> were a missing ENDBR?
No.
Anyway, I can drop these first two patches for now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists