Re: [PATCH v4 09/17] perf/core: Use static_call to optimize perf_guest_info_callbacks

[Kees Cook]

On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 09:28:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 10:45:15AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> > I'm digging through the macros to sort this out, but IIUC, an example of
> > the problem is:
> > 
> 
> > so the caller is expecting "unsigned int (*)(void)" but the prototype
> > of __static_call_return0 is "long (*)(void)":
> > 
> > long __static_call_return0(void);
> > 
> > Could we simply declare a type-matched ret0 trampoline too?
> 
> That'll work for this case, but the next case the function will have
> arguments we'll need even more nonsense...

Shouldn't the typeof() work there too, though? I.e. as long as the
return value can hold a "0", it'd work.

> And as stated in that other email, there's tb_stub_func() having the
> exact same problem as well.

Yeah, I'd need to go look at that again.

> The x86_64 CFI patches had a work-around for this, that could trivially
> be lifted I suppose.

Yeah, I think it'd be similar. I haven't had a chance to go look at that
again...

-- 
Kees Cook