Re: [PATCH] static_call,x86: Robustify trampoline patching

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 12:36:18AM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2021 at 21:45, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 09:21:56PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >
> > > That means we can support static calls on arm64 now without breaking
> > > Clang CFI, and work on a solution for the redundant jumps on a more
> > > relaxed schedule.
> >
> > Yes, arm64 has a 'problem' with having already merged the clang-cfi
> > stuff :/
> >
> > I'm hoping the x86 solution can be an alternative CFI scheme, I'm
> > starting to really hate this one. And I'm not at all convinced the
> > proposed scheme is the best possible scheme given the constraints of
> > kernel code. AFAICT it's a compromise made in userspace.
> 
> Your scheme only works with IBT: the value of %r11 is under the
> adversary's control so it could just point it at 'foo+0x10' if it
> wants to call foo indirectly, and circumvent the check. So without IBT
> (or BTI), I think the check fundamentally belongs in the caller, not
> in the callee.

How is that not true for the jump table approach? Like I showed earlier,
it is *trivial* to reconstruct the actual function pointer from a
jump-table entry pointer.

In any case, I really want the discussion to start at square one, and
show/explain why any chosen CFI scheme is actually good for the kernel.
Just because clang happened to have implemented it, doesn't make it the
most suitable scheme for the kernel.