Re: [PATCH] x86/crypto: Add missing RETs

[Josh Poimboeuf]

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 09:58:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > So that's still incomplete in that doesn't analyze the 32-bit build yet, right?
> > 
> > We could do INT3s on 64-bit and NOPs on 32-bit.
> > 
> > Or, possibly even better, we could just keep NOPs everywhere and instead
> > make objtool smart enough to detect function fallthroughs.  That should
> > be pretty easy, actually.  It already does it for C files.
> > 
> > Something like the below should work, though it's still got a few
> > issues:
> > 
> >   a) objtool is currently disabled for crypto code because it doesn't
> >      yet understand crypto stack re-alignments (which really needs
> >      fixing anyway); and
> > 
> >   b) it complains about the blank xen hypercalls falling through.  Those
> >      aren't actual functions anyway, so we should probably annotate
> >      those somehow so that objtool ignores them anyway.
> > 
> > I'm a bit swamped at the moment but I can fix those once I get a little
> > more bandwidth.  I at least verified that this patch caught the crypto
> > missing RETs.
> 
> Great, I'd be perfectly fine with such an approach.
> 
> Also, if we have that then we could re-apply Alexey's patch and switch to INT3 
> (only on 64-bit kernels) without any trouble, because objtool should detect any 
> execution flow bugs before the INT3 could trigger, right?
> 
> I.e. any INT3 fault would show a combination of *both* an objtool bug and a 
> probable code flow bug - which I suspect would warrant crashing the box ...

Sounds good to me.  I can take Alexey's patch and submit a 64-bit
version of it, along with the relevant objtool changes (though it may
still be a few weeks before I get the chance).

-- 
Josh