lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 36/39] objtool: Find unused ENDBR instructions
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 07:46:13PM -0800, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:52:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT
> > + . = ALIGN(8);
> > + .ibt_endbr_sites : AT(ADDR(.ibt_endbr_sites) - LOAD_OFFSET) {
> > + __ibt_endbr_sites = .;
> > + *(.ibt_endbr_sites)
> > + __ibt_endbr_sites_end = .;
> > + }
> > +#endif
>
> ".ibt_endbr_superfluous" maybe? It's not *all* the endbr sites.

Since I like seals, I'll make it .ibt_endbr_seal :-) Also goes well with
the option at hand.

> > +
> > /*
> > * struct alt_inst entries. From the header (alternative.h):
> > * "Alternative instructions for different CPU types or capabilities"
> > --- a/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c
> > +++ b/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c
> > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
> >
> > bool no_fp, no_unreachable, retpoline, module, backtrace, uaccess, stats,
> > lto, vmlinux, mcount, noinstr, backup, sls, dryrun,
> > - ibt, ibt_fix_direct;
> > + ibt, ibt_fix_direct, ibt_seal;
> >
> > static const char * const check_usage[] = {
> > "objtool check [<options>] file.o",
> > @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ const struct option check_options[] = {
> > OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "dry-run", &dryrun, "don't write the modifications"),
> > OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "ibt", &ibt, "validate ENDBR placement"),
> > OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "ibt-fix-direct", &ibt_fix_direct, "fixup direct jmp/call to ENDBR"),
> > + OPT_BOOLEAN(0, "ibt-seal", &ibt_seal, "list superfluous ENDBR instructions"),
>
> s/list/annotate/ ?

Done :-)

> Not sure "ibt-seal" is the appropriate name since the "seal" is done at
> boot time.

It allows sealing; it finds the locations to seal, whatever :-)

> Do we really need a separate option anyway? To get the full benefits of
> IBT you might as well enable it... And always enabling it helps flush
> out bugs quicker.

Are you asking about --ibt and --ibt-seal or about the existence of
X86_KERNEL_IBT_SEAL here?

The Makefiles will only ever use --ibt and --ibt-seal together for the
reason you state. The reason they're two separate objtool arguments is
because it's stictly speaking two different things being done. Also
--ibt as such is invariant, while --ibt-seal causes modifications to the
object file (which can be discarded using the new --dry-run I suppose).

The reason X86_KERNEL_IBT_SEAL exists is because that requires objtool
while X86_KERNEL_IBT does not -- you seemed to favour not hard relying
on having objtool present.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-28 13:42    [W:0.156 / U:1.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site