[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABCJKucbBfpwPYnKoEpAx1xe58uShKsxBhX5y8JyaTRs3eWanQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:04:50 -0700
From: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
alyssa.milburn@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jpoimboe@...nel.org, joao@...rdrivepizza.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/fineibt: Poison ENDBR at +0
On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 2:55 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 09:35:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Alyssa noticed that when building the kernel with CFI_CLANG+IBT and
> > booting on IBT enabled hardware obtain FineIBT, the indirect functions
> > look like:
> >
> > __cfi_foo:
> > endbr64
> > subl $hash, %r10d
> > jz 1f
> > ud2
> > nop
> > 1:
> > foo:
> > endbr64
> >
> > This is because clang currently does not supress ENDBR emission for
> > functions it provides a __cfi prologue symbol for.
>
> Should this be considered a bug in Clang?
The endbr is needed with KCFI if we have FineIBT disabled for some
reason. There's some discussion here:
https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues/1735
However, since the kernel handles FineIBT patching, it might be
cleaner to let it also poison the extra endbr.
Sami
Powered by blists - more mailing lists