Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:03:24 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/ibt: Implement FineIBT |
| |
On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 11:01:08AM +0000, David Laight wrote: > From: Peter Zijlstra > > Sent: 27 October 2022 10:28 > > > > Hi all, > > > > Updated FineIBT series; I've (hopefully) incorporated all feedback from last > > time with the notable exception of the Kconfig CFI default -- I'm not sure we > > want to add to the Kconfig space for this, also what would a distro do with it. > > > > Anyway; please have a look, I'm hoping to merge this soonish so we can make the > > next cycle. > > Is there a test to ensure that modules are actually compiled > with the required endbra, function prologue gap (etc). > Having the module load fail is somewhat better than a crash. > > It is almost certainly quite easy to generate an out of tree module that > is missing all of those (even if compiled at the same time as the kernel). > (Never mind issues with modules that contain binary blobs.)
There is not; it is always possible to load a 'malformed' module. We have no sanity checking on modules. It is no different from any other binary compatilibity issue; if you build a dud module, you get to keep the pieces.
| |