linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Objtool toolchain proposal: -fannotate-{jump-table,noreturn}

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: <alpine.LSU.2.20.2209141201400.8265@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2022 12:08:37 +0000 (UTC)
From:   Michael Matz <matz@...e.de>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
cc:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@...wei.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Sathvika Vasireddy <sv@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org,
        Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        "Jose E. Marchesi" <jemarch@....org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Objtool toolchain proposal:
 -fannotate-{jump-table,noreturn}

Hello,

On Wed, 14 Sep 2022, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> > >    This information is needed because the
> > >    code after the call to such a function is optimized out as
> > >    unreachable and objtool has no way of knowing that.
> > 
> > Since June we (GCC) have -funreachable-traps.  This creates a trap insn
> > wherever control flow would otherwise go into limbo.
> 
> Ah, that's interesting, though I'm not sure if we'd be able to
> distinguish between "call doesn't return" traps and other traps or
> reasons for UD2.

There are two reasons (which will turn out to be the same) for a trap (say 
'UD2' on x86-64) directly after a call insn:
1) "the call shall not have returned"
2) something else jumps to that trap because it was __builtin_unreachable 
   (or equivalent), and the compiler happened to put that ud2 directly 
   after the call.  It could have done that only when the call itself was 
   noreturn:
     cmp $foo, %rax
     jne do_trap
     call noret
    do_trap:
     ud2

So, it's all the same.  If there's an ud2 (or whatever the trap maker is) 
after a call then it was because it's noreturn.

(But, of course this costs (little) code size, unlike the non-alloc 
checker sections)


Ciao,
Michael.