LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc: Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	hjl.tools@gmail.com, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] objtool: Add IBT validation / fixups
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2022 23:25:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220214222550.GB23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABCJKuciRBnz4JxBDJC=+kuJn4pU2uBkWPBov7-VL2o2j0F4SA@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:38:18PM -0800, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 5:38 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > I think we'll end up with something related to KCFI, but with distinct
> > differences:
> >
> >  - 32bit immediates for smaller code
> 
> Sure, I don't see issues with that. Based on a quick test with
> defconfig, this reduces vmlinux size by 0.30%.
> 
> >  - __kcfi_check_fail() is out for smaller code
> 
> I'm fine with adding a trap mode that's used by default, but having
> more helpful diagnostics when something fails is useful even in
> production systems in my experience. This change results in a vmlinux
> that's another 0.92% smaller.

You can easily have the exception generate a nice warning, you can even
have it continue. You really don't need a call for that.

> > Which then yields:
> >
> > caller:
> >         cmpl    $0xdeadbeef, -0x4(%rax)         # 7 bytes
> >         je      1f                              # 2 bytes
> >         ud2                                     # 2 bytes
> > 1:      call    __x86_indirect_thunk_rax        # 5 bytes
> 
> Note that the compiler might not emit this *exact* sequence of
> instructions. For example, Clang generates this for events_sysfs_show
> with the modified KCFI patch:
> 
> 2274:       cmpl   $0x4d7bed9e,-0x4(%r11)
> 227c:       jne    22c0 <events_sysfs_show+0x6c>
> 227e:       call   2283 <events_sysfs_show+0x2f>
>                     227f: R_X86_64_PLT32    __x86_indirect_thunk_r11-0x4
> ...
> 22c0:       ud2
> 
> In this case the function has two indirect calls and Clang seems to
> prefer to emit just one ud2.

That will not allow you to recover from the exception. UD2 is not an
unconditional fail. It should have an out-going edge in this case too.

Heck, most of the WARN_ON() things are UD2 instructions.

Also, you really should add a CS prefix to the retpoline thunk call if
you insist on using r11 (or any of the higher regs).

> >         .align 16
> >         .byte 0xef, 0xbe, 0xad, 0xde            # 4 bytes
> > func:
> >         endbr                                   # 4 bytes
> 
> Here func is no longer aligned to 16 bytes, in case that's important.

The idea was to have the hash and the endbr in the same cacheline.

> > Did I miss anything? Got anything wrong?
> 
> How would you like to deal with the 4-byte hashes in objtool? We
> either need to annotate all function symbols in the kernel, or we need
> a way to distinguish the hashes from random instructions, so we can
> also have functions that don't have a type hash.

Easiest would be to create a special section with all the hash offsets
in I suppose. A bit like -mfentry-section=name.

  reply	other threads:[~2022-02-14 22:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-22 17:03 [RFC][PATCH 0/6] x86: Kernel IBT beginnings Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-22 17:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/6] x86: Annotate _THIS_IP_ Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-23 13:53   ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-23 14:14     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-24 18:18       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-11-22 17:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/6] x86: Base IBT bits Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-08 23:32   ` Kees Cook
2021-11-22 17:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 3/6] x86: Add ENDBR to IRET-to-Self Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-22 18:09   ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-08 23:33     ` Kees Cook
2021-11-22 17:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 4/6] objtool: Read the _THIS_IP_ hints Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-22 17:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/6] x86: Sprinkle ENDBR dust Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-23 14:00   ` Mark Rutland
2021-11-23 14:21     ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-08 23:38     ` Kees Cook
2021-11-22 17:03 ` [RFC][PATCH 6/6] objtool: Add IBT validation / fixups Peter Zijlstra
2021-11-24 19:30   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-02-08 23:43     ` Kees Cook
2022-02-09  5:09       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2022-02-09 11:41       ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-09 11:45         ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-12-24  2:05   ` joao
2022-02-08 23:42     ` Kees Cook
2022-02-09  2:21       ` Joao Moreira
2022-02-09  4:05         ` Kees Cook
2022-02-09  5:18           ` Joao Moreira
2022-02-11 13:38             ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-14 21:38               ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-02-14 22:25                 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2022-02-15 16:56                   ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-02-15 20:03                     ` Kees Cook
2022-02-15 21:05                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-15 23:05                         ` Kees Cook
2022-02-15 23:38                           ` Joao Moreira
2022-02-16 12:24                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-15 20:53                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-15 22:45               ` Joao Moreira
2022-02-16  0:57               ` Andrew Cooper
2022-03-02  3:06               ` Peter Collingbourne
2022-03-02  3:32                 ` Joao Moreira
2022-06-08 17:53                 ` Fāng-ruì Sòng
2022-06-09  0:05                   ` Sami Tolvanen
2021-11-23  7:58 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/6] x86: Kernel IBT beginnings Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-23  9:02   ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-02-08 23:48 ` Kees Cook
2022-02-09  0:09 ` Nick Desaulniers

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220214222550.GB23216@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=joao@overdrivepizza.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/6] objtool: Add IBT validation / fixups' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).