lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86/ibt: Implement FineIBT
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 09:48:42PM -0700, Joao Moreira wrote:
> > > Is it useful to get the compiler to emit 0xcc with
> > > -fpatchable-function-entry under any circumstance? I can probably
> > > change
> > > that quickly if needed/useful.
> >
> > Having it emit 0xcc for the bytes in front of the symbol might be
> > interesting. It would mean a few kernel changes, but nothing too hard.
> >
> > That is, -fpatchable-function-entry=N,M gets us N-M bytes in at the
> > start of the symbol and M bytes in front of it. The N-M bytes at the
> > start of the function *are* executed and should obviously not become
> > 0xcc (GCC keeps them 0x90 while LLVM makes them large NOPs).
>
> Uhum, all makes sense. I drafted something here:
>
> https://github.com/lvwr/llvm-project/commits/joao/int3
>
> Let me know if this works for you or if there is something that should be
> tweaked, like adding a specific flag and such. This currently emits 0xcc
> instead of 0x90 for the nops before the function entry symbol for kernel
> code on x86-64. It seems to be working (see generated snippet below), but
> let me know otherwise:
>
> Generated with -fpatchable-function-entry=10,5
>
> Disassembly of section .text:
>
> 0000000000000000 <save_processor_state-0x5>:
> 0: cc int3
> 1: cc int3
> 2: cc int3
> 3: cc int3
> 4: cc int3
>
> 0000000000000005 <save_processor_state>:
> 5: 0f 1f 44 00 08 nopl 0x8(%rax,%rax,1)
> a: 41 57 push %r15
> c: 41 56 push %r14

Cool! I like that. Assuming objtool doesn't freak out, that seems like a
nice way to go.

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-10-19 07:20    [W:0.090 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site