netdev - Re: violating function pointer signature

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: <20201118141226.GV3121392@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 15:12:26 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Mullins <mmullins@...x.us>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: violating function pointer signature

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 02:59:29PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra:
> 
> > I think that as long as the function is completely empty (it never
> > touches any of the arguments) this should work in practise.
> >
> > That is:
> >
> >   void tp_nop_func(void) { }
> >
> > can be used as an argument to any function pointer that has a void
> > return. In fact, I already do that, grep for __static_call_nop().
> 
> You can pass it as a function parameter, but in general, you cannot
> call the function with a different prototype.  Even trivial
> differences such as variadic vs non-variadic prototypes matter.

I don't think any tracepoint uses variadic argument.

> The default Linux calling conventions are all of the cdecl family,
> where the caller pops the argument off the stack.  You didn't quote
> enough to context to tell whether other calling conventions matter in
> your case.

This is strictly in-kernel, and I think we're all cdecl, of which the
important part is caller-cleanup. The function compiles to:

	RET

so whatever the arguments are is irrelevant.

> > I'm not sure what the LLVM-CFI crud makes of it, but that's their
> > problem.
> 
> LTO can cause problems as well, particularly with whole-program
> optimization.

I don't think LTO can de-virtualize a dynamic array of function
pointers, so there's very little risk. That said, the __static_call_nop
case, where everything is inlined, is compiled sub-optimally for both
LLVM and GCC.