[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230706071705.GD2833176@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2023 09:17:05 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@...e.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, samitolvanen@...gle.com, x86@...nel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/retpoline,kprobes: Avoid treating rethunk as an
indirect jump
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 09:47:23AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > If I understand correctly, all indirect jump will be replaced with JMP_NOSPEC.
> > > If you read the insn_jump_into_range, I onlu jecks the jump code, not call.
> > > So the functions only have indirect call still allow optprobe.
> >
> > With the introduction of kCFI JMP_NOSPEC is no longer an equivalent to a
> > C indirect jump.
>
> If I understand correctly, kCFI is enabled by CFI_CLANG, and clang is not
> using jump-tables by default, so we can focus on gcc. In that case
> current check still work, correct?
IIRC clang can use jump tables, but like GCC needs RETPOLINE=n and
IBT=n, so effectively nobody has them.
The reason I did mention kCFI though is that kCFI has a larger 'indirect
jump' sequence, and I'm not sure we've thought about what can go
sideways if that's optprobed.
I suspect the UD2 that's in there will go 'funny' if it's relocated into
an optprobe, as in, it'll not be recognised as a CFI fail.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists