linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] objtool: Validate kCFI calls

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: <u4v64j3wgdml5zkij43lcksknhpoaqs3jmrm5udejrg75dl2ny@x4jexlz64amd>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:59:53 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, 
	wei.liu@...nel.org, decui@...rosoft.com, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, 
	bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, seanjc@...gle.com, 
	pbonzini@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, 
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com, 
	ojeda@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] objtool: Validate kCFI calls

On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 01:07:47PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +	case ANNOTYPE_NOCFI:
> +		sym = insn->sym;
> +		if (!sym) {
> +			ERROR_INSN(insn, "dodgy NOCFI annotation");
> +			break;

return -1;

> +	/*
> +	 * kCFI call sites look like:
> +	 *
> +	 *     movl $(-0x12345678), %r10d
> +	 *     addl -4(%r11), %r10d
> +	 *     jz 1f
> +	 *     ud2
> +	 *  1: cs call __x86_indirect_thunk_r11
> +	 *
> +	 * Verify all indirect calls are kCFI adorned by checking for the
> +	 * UD2. Notably, doing __nocfi calls to regular (cfi) functions is
> +	 * broken.
> +	 */
> +	list_for_each_entry(insn, &file->retpoline_call_list, call_node) {
> +		struct symbol *sym = insn->sym;
> +
> +		if (sym && sym->type == STT_FUNC && !sym->nocfi) {
> +			struct instruction *prev =
> +				prev_insn_same_sym(file, insn);
> +
> +			if (!prev || prev->type != INSN_BUG) {
> +				WARN_INSN(insn, "no-cfi indirect call!");
> +				warnings++;

Do we not care about indirect calls from !STT_FUNC?

-- 
Josh