linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] objtool: Detect and warn about indirect calls in _

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250529093017.GJ31726@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 11:30:17 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, 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, 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, xin@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/13] objtool: Detect and warn about indirect calls
 in __nocfi functions

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:35:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:30:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 09:44:52AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 12:18:49PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Weird, I'm not seeing that.
> > > 
> > > I Ate'nt Crazeh...
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/202505280410.2qfTQCRt-lkp@intel.com/T/#u
> > > 
> > > I'll go poke at it, see if today is the day I can figure out WTF
> > > happens.
> > 
> > It manages to trip the CFI_UNDEFINED case in op->dest.reg == cfa->base
> > in update_cfi_state().
> > 
> > I figured it ought to tickle the regular 'mov %rbp, %rsp' case above
> > there, but it doesn't, for some reason it has cfa.base == SP at this
> > point.
> > 
> > This happens... /me looks in scrollback ... at POP_REGS 'pop
> > %rbp'. ARGH!!
> > 

More fun!

> > So the sequence of fail is:
> > 
> > 	push %rbp
> > 	mov %rsp, %rbp	# cfa.base = BP
> > 
> > 	SAVE

	sub    $0x40,%rsp
	and    $0xffffffffffffffc0,%rsp

This hits the 'older GCC, drap with frame pointer' case in OP_SRC_AND.
Which means we then hard rely on the frame pointer to get things right.

However, per all the PUSH/POP_REGS nonsense, BP can get clobbered.
Specifically the code between the CALL and POP %rbp below are up in the
air. I don't think it can currently unwind properly there.

> > 	...
> > 	push %rbp
> > 	...
> > 	pop %rbp	# cfa.base = SP
> 
> This is the POP !drap and dest==base case.
> 
> > 	...
> > 	mov %rbp, %rsp  # UNDEF
> > 	nop		# FAIL
> > 	RESTORE
> > 
> > Note that the MOV+NOP is the 4 bytes ERETS needs.