From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
Joao Moreira <joao@overdrivepizza.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
llvm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21] KCFI support
Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 21:55:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YnA3Le2uJRaFF4TC@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABCJKuckt75qA1op-LpkJnQsJC36m9fstbY3uD=7pET2VyyZSg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 08:22:57AM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
> > Anyway, I think I hate that __builtin, I'd *much* rather see a variable
> > attribute or qualifier for this, such that one can mark a function
> > pointer as not doing CFI.
> >
> > I simply doesn't make sense to have a builtin that operates on an
> > expression. The whole thing is about indirect calls, IOW function
> > pointers.
>
> I also thought an attribute would be more convenient, but the compiler
> folks prefer a built-in:
>
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D122673
That seems to mostly worry about C++ things (overload sets, template
specialization, name mangling) we kernel folks don't seem to much care
about.
I'll stick with saying type system makes more sense to me though.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-02 19:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-29 20:36 [RFC PATCH 00/21] KCFI support Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 01/21] efi/libstub: Filter out CC_FLAGS_CFI Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 02/21] arm64/vdso: " Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 03/21] kallsyms: Ignore __kcfi_typeid_ Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 04/21] cfi: Remove CONFIG_CFI_CLANG_SHADOW Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 05/21] cfi: Drop __CFI_ADDRESSABLE Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 06/21] cfi: Switch to -fsanitize=kcfi Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-30 9:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 07/21] cfi: Add type helper macros Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 08/21] arm64/crypto: Add types to indirect called assembly functions Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 09/21] arm64: Add CFI error handling Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-05 15:44 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-05 16:23 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 10/21] treewide: Drop function_nocfi Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-05 16:30 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-05 16:51 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-05 18:03 ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 11/21] treewide: Drop WARN_ON_FUNCTION_MISMATCH Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 12/21] treewide: Drop __cficanonical Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 13/21] cfi: Add the cfi_unchecked macro Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 14/21] treewide: static_call: Pass call arguments to the macro Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 23:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-30 0:49 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-02 7:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 15/21] static_call: Use cfi_unchecked Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 23:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 16/21] objtool: Add support for CONFIG_CFI_CLANG Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 23:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-30 1:00 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 17/21] x86/tools/relocs: Ignore __kcfi_typeid_ relocations Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 18/21] x86: Add types to indirect called assembly functions Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 19/21] x86/purgatory: Disable CFI Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 20/21] x86/vdso: " Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 20:36 ` [RFC PATCH 21/21] x86: Add support for CONFIG_CFI_CLANG Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-30 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-02 15:20 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-04-29 22:53 ` [RFC PATCH 00/21] KCFI support Kees Cook
2022-04-30 9:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-05-02 15:22 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-02 19:55 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2022-05-03 22:35 ` Peter Collingbourne
2022-05-04 7:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2022-04-30 16:07 ` Kenton Groombridge
2022-05-02 15:31 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-04 16:17 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-04 16:41 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-04 20:17 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-05 12:36 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-05 16:00 ` Sami Tolvanen
2022-05-05 17:14 ` Mark Rutland
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=YnA3Le2uJRaFF4TC@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=joao@overdrivepizza.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=nathan@kernel.org \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox