[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63e3f989.170a0220.60c91.c5ce@mx.google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 11:35:37 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Dan Li <ashimida.1990@...il.com>
Cc: concord@...too.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
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
On Sat, Jan 07, 2023 at 07:42:13AM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> 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.
Hi!
Just checking in on this, since there are a lot of interested folks. :)
What's the status on the next version (and has anyone been found to
tackle the x86 backend part)? Is there anything we can help with?
Thanks!
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists