[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230107154213.ocyghxd2k66gbvv6@ubuntu>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2023 07:42:13 -0800
From: Dan Li <ashimida.1990@...il.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Qing Zhao <qing.zhao@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@...hat.com>,
Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>,
Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@...il.com>,
Changbin Du <changbin.du@...el.com>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] CFI: Add support for gcc CFI in aarch64
Hi Kees,
On 01/06, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 05:32:04AM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> Hi!
>
> First of all, thank you thank you for working on this in GCC. This will
> make a big difference for folks that don't have the option to build with
> Clang to gain CFI coverage.
>
> As for the implementation details, the core issue is really that this
> type of CFI is specifically designed for the Linux kernel, and it took a
> rather long time to figure out all the specifics needed (down to the
> byte counts and instruction layouts). GCC's version will ultimately need
> to exactly match the Clang output, or Linux is unlikely to support it.
>
> We're already on our second CFI -- the original Clang CFI was just too
> clunky for long-term use in Linux, so unless we're going to improve on
> the latest Clang KCFI implementation in some way, it's better to stick
> to exactly byte-for-byte identical results. The KCFI support in Linux
> depends on the arm64 and x86_64 runtimes for catching the traps, and the
> post-processing done (on x86_64) with objtool that prepares the kernel
> for IBT use, and converts to the optional FineIBT CFI mechanism. With
> all those moving parts, there needs to be a very compelling reason to
> have GCC KCFI implementation differ from Clang's.
>
> Hopefully that context helps a little. I'm excited to try out future
> versions!
Thanks for the context, it makes sense and helped me a lot. :)
In the next version I'll make the gcc implementation consistent with clang.
Thanks,
Dan.
>
> -Kees
>
> --
> Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists