linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] static_call: Make NULL static calls consistent

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: <20230310205926.GB1605437@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 21:59:26 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] static_call: Make NULL static calls consistent

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:31:13PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> -/*
> - * This horrific hack takes care of two things:
> - *
> - *  - it ensures the compiler will only load the function pointer ONCE,
> - *    which avoids a reload race.
> - *
> - *  - it ensures the argument evaluation is unconditional, similar
> - *    to the HAVE_STATIC_CALL variant.
> - *
> - * Sadly current GCC/Clang (10 for both) do not optimize this properly
> - * and will emit an indirect call for the NULL case :-(
> - */
> -#define __static_call_cond(name)					\
> -({									\
> -	void *func = READ_ONCE(STATIC_CALL_KEY(name).func);		\
> -	if (!func)							\
> -		func = &__static_call_nop;				\
> -	(typeof(STATIC_CALL_TRAMP(name))*)func;				\
> -})

So a sufficiently clever compiler can optimize the above to avoid the
actual indirect call (and resulting CFI violation, see below), because
__static_call_nop() is inline and hence visible as an empty stub
function. Currently none of the compilers are that clever :/

> -#define static_call_cond(name)	(void)__static_call_cond(name)
> +#define static_call_cond(name) (void)static_call(name)
>  
>  static inline
>  void __static_call_update(struct static_call_key *key, void *tramp, void *func)
>  {
> -	WRITE_ONCE(key->func, func);
> +	WRITE_ONCE(key->func, func ? : (void *)__static_call_nop);
>  }

This will break ARM64 I think, they don't HAVE_STATIC_CALL but do have
CLANG_CFI, which means the above will end up being a runtime indirect
call to a non-matching signature function.

Now, I suppose we don't actually have this happen in current code by the
simple expedient of not actually having any static_call_cond() usage
outside of arch code.

(/me git-grep's some and *arrrggh* trusted-keys)

I really don't think we can do this though, must not promote CFI
violations.