Re: [PATCH v3 16/16] objtool: Validate kCFI calls

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 12:49:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 12:20:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > --- a/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_stub_64.S
> > +++ b/arch/x86/platform/efi/efi_stub_64.S
> > @@ -11,6 +11,10 @@
> >  #include <asm/nospec-branch.h>
> >  
> >  SYM_FUNC_START(__efi_call)
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The EFI code doesn't have any CFI, annotate away the CFI violation.
> > +	 */
> > +	ANNOTATE_NOCFI_SYM
> >  	pushq %rbp
> >  	movq %rsp, %rbp
> >  	and $~0xf, %rsp
> 
> FWIW, we should probably do something like this as well.
> 
> ---
> 
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> @@ -562,6 +562,13 @@ __noendbr u64 ibt_save(bool disable)
>  {
>  	u64 msr = 0;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Firmware code will not provide the same level of
> +	 * control-flow-integriry. Taint the kernel to let the user know.
> +	 */
> +	if (disable || (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CFI_CLANG) && cfi_mode != CFI_OFF))
> +		add_taint(TAINT_CFI, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);

Or perhaps:

	WARN_TAINT_ONCE(disable || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CFI_CLANG) && cfi_mode != CFI_OFF),
			TAINT_CFI, "Firmware has weaker CFI");

> +
>  	if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_IBT)) {
>  		rdmsrq(MSR_IA32_S_CET, msr);
>  		if (disable)
> --- a/include/linux/panic.h
> +++ b/include/linux/panic.h
> @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ static inline void set_arch_panic_timeou
>  #define TAINT_RANDSTRUCT		17
>  #define TAINT_TEST			18
>  #define TAINT_FWCTL			19
> -#define TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT		20
> +#define TAINT_CFI			20
> +#define TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT		21
>  #define TAINT_FLAGS_MAX			((1UL << TAINT_FLAGS_COUNT) - 1)
>  
>  struct taint_flag {