From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f176.google.com (mail-pg1-f176.google.com [209.85.215.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B4972F25 for ; Sat, 14 May 2022 21:54:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-f176.google.com with SMTP id 137so10681259pgb.5 for ; Sat, 14 May 2022 14:54:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=gDVhI2zku2qZKvaq49DPvnyS72Uf7FU9KhCkFrjajU8=; b=S1011jnyYAkqBEEDMxT9syvIhh2zSvV8Zkh+bBVbAiJUkWvxnx5G4QQmkCufpwGOcQ /VZM22i7sKGtdqrpwsp9Ytbo3kro9y+f2Y0MIR5yMMRIu0uPZUtRoPywyBZYtRbMJDcu uQQpImYc+cjK3PovHb0YXltkeyKprRSzXdKAk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=gDVhI2zku2qZKvaq49DPvnyS72Uf7FU9KhCkFrjajU8=; b=qT/+X9WwpxRTECRSRGUQ2FmsvIA/J4Q4RlldhqjbqrO/FJM9dbrJJfwRVdz+Zoq/FL BGumFpXGFfktQS+NRfSEjeWvGTUnmysfkkiYvS3OGSnwgzwQOPO+JIpYXN97gs6l87YT OciS1SCVm0cEFIf/Der+L4jN1yv32Fce4bw78ZQ9U/5XsHNmXMXWGBIFpwotsKGixG5G NtIYIapbY66cZi58AA9i8dwb9EfUL2bGhfzlI5owKNUmkY7KeX+cXQVJcH6M0P1d/I4o RUupWD1Gv07WrcWAAlUcsuRAlLVrWUiQz6wABEBGKjiDESpH/5W8yGbBIjsR7iJj7p3y 2lIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531b/5Bc1g5BnE82cVQdqlTDhm27QWcNGVk59xeBhS1mmv2EcbKA JjwKrL2o8UAMLry0t5IcwnrRuA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8U7RbEud+2dU/6vQphGcmECzPHMeX+WfFdiNBbxRS9BySOYWWpcCZo0DnGxsttLazJB4nAg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:f046:0:b0:3c6:a37b:1613 with SMTP id s6-20020a63f046000000b003c6a37b1613mr9503013pgj.168.1652565242585; Sat, 14 May 2022 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b7-20020a170903228700b0015e8d4eb1f8sm4186116plh.66.2022.05.14.14.54.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 14 May 2022 14:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 14 May 2022 14:54:01 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Sami Tolvanen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf , Peter Zijlstra , x86@kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Nathan Chancellor , Nick Desaulniers , Joao Moreira , Sedat Dilek , Steven Rostedt , linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/21] arm64: Drop unneeded __nocfi attributes Message-ID: <202205141453.44171359E3@keescook> References: <20220513202159.1550547-1-samitolvanen@google.com> <20220513202159.1550547-12-samitolvanen@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: llvm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220513202159.1550547-12-samitolvanen@google.com> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 01:21:49PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > With -fsanitize=kcfi, CONFIG_CFI_CLANG no longer has issues > with address space confusion in functions that switch to linear > mapping. Now that the indirectly called assembly functions have > type annotations, drop the __nocfi attributes. > > Suggested-by: Mark Rutland > Signed-off-by: Sami Tolvanen It looks like there are still other cases that continue to require __nocfi, yes? It looks like after this series, it's still BPF? Reviewed-by: Kees Cook -- Kees Cook