[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v4 01/11] x86/HVM: improve CET-IBT pruning of ENDBR


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 10:44:12 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Mar 2025 09:44:35 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 05.03.2025 18:26, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 05:23:05PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 05.03.2025 16:39, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 04:02:51PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 05.03.2025 15:48, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 12:37:00PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> __init{const,data}_cf_clobber can have an effect only for pointers
>>>>>> actually populated in the respective tables. While not the case for SVM
>>>>>> right now, VMX installs a number of pointers only under certain
>>>>>> conditions. Hence the respective functions would have their ENDBR purged
>>>>>> only when those conditions are met. Invoke "pruning" functions after
>>>>>> having copied the respective tables, for them to install any "missing"
>>>>>> pointers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> However I find this filling slightly ugly, and prone to be forgotten
>>>>> when further hooks are added.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Luckily, while undesirable, that wouldn't be an outright bug.
>>>>
>>>>> Would it make sense to delay enabling of IBT until after alternatives
>>>>> have been applied, and thus simply not use the cf_clobber attribute on
>>>>> functions that are patched to not be indirectly called?
>>
>> Hmm, wait - how would that work? cf_clobber is used on function pointer
>> tables; any function indirectly callable prior to patching still needs
>> marking with cf_check, for build-time analysis to not throw errors (with
>> the specially patched gcc that Andrew prepared with a patch of H.J.'s).
> 
> Yeah, we would need something there?
> 
> Maybe disable such detection around alternative_{,v}call() usages if
> possible?
> 
> I assume the build-time detection is done based on call sites?

I think the build-time detection is based on places where addresses of
functions are taken. Call sites are close to impossible to re-associate
with the possible set of functions being called. If at all, that would
require the compiler to have a view of the entire image. Whereas the
warnings are issued as individual objects are being built.

Jan

>  We
> would need to figure out whether the detection can be disabled for
> chunks of code.
> 
> Thanks, Roger.




 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.