All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dan Li <ashimida.1990@gmail.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>,
	Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>,
	Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@gmail.com>,
	Changbin Du <changbin.du@intel.com>,
	linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] CFI: Add support for gcc CFI in aarch64
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 08:55:26 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y7PtfkuE3KimY4Gq@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y6B9l/aDnsek8Zyl@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 04:04:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 05:32:04AM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > On 12/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 10:17:58PM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 1. When a typeid mismatch is detected, the cfi_check_failed function
> > > >    will be called instead of the brk instruction. This function needs
> > > >    to be implemented by the compiler user.
> > > >    If there are user mode programs or other systems that want to use
> > > >    this feature, it may be more convenient to use a callback (so this
> > > >    compilation option is set to -fsanitize=cfi instead of kcfi).
> > > 
> > > This is not going to be acceptible for x86_64.
> > 
> > I'm not familiar enough with the x86_64 platform, could you please
> > tell me why this is not acceptable? Is there a similar situation
> > on the arm64 platform?
> 
> Mostly because the call would be a 5 byte instruction while the trap
> (UD2) is only 2 bytes.
> 
> I suspect Argh64 has a similar problem if the to be called function is
> outside the immediate range (26 bits or thereabout), in which case you
> end up with a multi-instruction sequence to construct the call target or
> so.

Either that or a direct branc to a PLT.

> A trap is always a single instruction.

Indeed.

I strongly prefer the BRK for the reasons I've given in my other reply, which
include code size.

Thanks,
Mark.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dan Li <ashimida.1990@gmail.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Michal Marek <michal.lkml@markovi.net>,
	Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>, Tom Rix <trix@redhat.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
	Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>,
	Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Aaron Tomlin <atomlin@redhat.com>,
	Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@google.com>,
	Yuntao Wang <ytcoode@gmail.com>,
	Changbin Du <changbin.du@intel.com>,
	linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] CFI: Add support for gcc CFI in aarch64
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 08:55:26 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y7PtfkuE3KimY4Gq@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y6B9l/aDnsek8Zyl@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 04:04:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 05:32:04AM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> > 
> > On 12/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 10:17:58PM -0800, Dan Li wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 1. When a typeid mismatch is detected, the cfi_check_failed function
> > > >    will be called instead of the brk instruction. This function needs
> > > >    to be implemented by the compiler user.
> > > >    If there are user mode programs or other systems that want to use
> > > >    this feature, it may be more convenient to use a callback (so this
> > > >    compilation option is set to -fsanitize=cfi instead of kcfi).
> > > 
> > > This is not going to be acceptible for x86_64.
> > 
> > I'm not familiar enough with the x86_64 platform, could you please
> > tell me why this is not acceptable? Is there a similar situation
> > on the arm64 platform?
> 
> Mostly because the call would be a 5 byte instruction while the trap
> (UD2) is only 2 bytes.
> 
> I suspect Argh64 has a similar problem if the to be called function is
> outside the immediate range (26 bits or thereabout), in which case you
> end up with a multi-instruction sequence to construct the call target or
> so.

Either that or a direct branc to a PLT.

> A trap is always a single instruction.

Indeed.

I strongly prefer the BRK for the reasons I've given in my other reply, which
include code size.

Thanks,
Mark.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-03  8:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-12-19  6:17 [RFC/RFT] CFI: Add support for gcc CFI in aarch64 Dan Li
2022-12-19  6:17 ` Dan Li
2022-12-19  6:38 ` Dan Li
2022-12-19  6:38   ` Dan Li
2022-12-19 10:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-12-19 10:40   ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-12-19 13:32   ` Dan Li
2022-12-19 13:32     ` Dan Li
2022-12-19 15:04     ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-12-19 15:04       ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-12-19 23:38       ` Dan Li
2022-12-19 23:38         ` Dan Li
2023-01-03  8:55       ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2023-01-03  8:55         ` Mark Rutland
2023-01-07  3:36     ` Kees Cook
2023-01-07  3:36       ` Kees Cook
2023-01-07 15:42       ` Dan Li
2023-01-07 15:42         ` Dan Li
2023-02-08 19:35         ` Kees Cook
2023-02-08 19:35           ` Kees Cook
2023-02-10 16:14           ` Dan Li
2023-02-10 16:14             ` Dan Li
2023-01-03  8:53 ` Mark Rutland
2023-01-03  8:53   ` Mark Rutland
2023-01-07 15:37   ` Dan Li
2023-01-07 15:37     ` Dan Li
2023-03-25  8:54 ` [RFC/RFT,V2] " Dan Li
2023-03-27  9:30   ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-03-27 22:17     ` Sami Tolvanen
2023-04-05 11:49       ` Dan Li
2023-12-13  8:48       ` Dan Li
     [not found]         ` <4a84af95-6270-6764-6a40-875ec20fc3e1@lixiang.com>
2023-12-13 14:45           ` Mark Rutland
2023-12-13 19:35           ` Kees Cook
2023-04-05 11:48     ` Dan Li
2023-12-13  8:28 ` [RFC/RFT] " Dan Li
2023-12-13  8:28   ` Dan Li

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=Y7PtfkuE3KimY4Gq@FVFF77S0Q05N \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ashimida.1990@gmail.com \
    --cc=atomlin@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@suse.de \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=changbin.du@intel.com \
    --cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=elver@google.com \
    --cc=frederic@kernel.org \
    --cc=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
    --cc=kaleshsingh@google.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=masahiroy@kernel.org \
    --cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
    --cc=memxor@gmail.com \
    --cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
    --cc=michal.lkml@markovi.net \
    --cc=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=trix@redhat.com \
    --cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=ytcoode@gmail.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.