[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <da82d26e-8269-5b95-2cbb-1c147e55fcd4@iogearbox.net>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 22:22:51 +0200
From: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf, arm64: sign return address for jited code
On 3/18/22 11:29 AM, Xu Kuohai wrote:
> Sign return address for jited code when the kernel is built with pointer
> authentication enabled.
>
> 1. Sign lr with paciasp instruction before lr is pushed to stack. Since
> paciasp acts like landing pads for function entry, no need to insert
> bti instruction before paciasp.
>
> 2. Authenticate lr with autiasp instruction after lr is poped from stack.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xu Kuohai <xukuohai@...wei.com>
This would need a rebase, but please also use the commit description to provide
some more details how this inter-operates wrt BPF infra such as tail calls and
BPF-2-BPF calls when we look back into this in few months from now.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists