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

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 07:18:53PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

> > The range check isn't fundamental to CFI, having a check is the
> > important thing AFAIU.
> 
> Agreed. If the call site has a direct branch, it doesn't need the range check.

That, from the earlier email:

 | And have the actual indirect callsite look like:
 |
 |        # r11 - &foo
 |        ALTERNATIVE_2   "cs call __x86_indirect_thunk_r11",
 |                        "cs call __x86_indirect_cfi_deadbeef", X86_FEATURE_CFI
 |                        "cs call __x86_indirect_ibt_deadbeef", X86_FEATURE_IBT

So the callsite has a direct call to the hash-specific and cfi-type
specific thunk, which then does an (indirect) tail-call.

The CFI one does the hash check in the thunk and jumps to the function
proper, the IBT one on does it in the landing-pad.

The !CFI one ignore it all and simply does an indirect call (retpoline
aided or otherwise) to the function proper -- in which case we can free
all the thunks.