Re: [PATCH 06/15] x86: Avoid CFI jump tables in IDT and entry points

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, Apr 16 2021 at 16:56, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 12:26:56AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Where is the analysis why excluding 
>> 
>> > +CFLAGS_REMOVE_idt.o		:= $(CC_FLAGS_CFI)
>> > +CFLAGS_REMOVE_paravirt.o	:= $(CC_FLAGS_CFI)
>> 
>> all of idt.c and paravirt.c is correct and how that is going to be
>> correct in the future?
>> 
>> These files are excluded from CFI, so I can add whatever I want to them
>> and circumvent the purpose of CFI, right?
>> 
>> Brilliant plan that. But I know, sekurity ...
>
> *sigh* we're on the same side. :P I will choose to understand your
> comments here as:
>
> "How will enforcement of CFI policy be correctly maintained here if
> the justification for disabling it for whole compilation units is not
> clearly understandable by other developers not familiar with the nuances
> of its application?"

Plus, if there is a justification for disabling it for a whole
compilation unit:

 Where is the tooling which makes sure that this compilation unit is not
 later on filled with code which should be subject to CFI?

Thanks,

        tglx