lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/7] objtool: Extend UNWIND_HINT based ENDBR rules
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 08:05:49AM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 12:52:54PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Extend the UNWIND hint driven rules for ENDBR placement. Currently
> > objtool expects an ENDBR at any UNWINT_HINT_IRET_REGS that is at +0 of
> > an STB_GLOBAL symbol, with the expectation that this is an exception
> > entry point.
> >
> > Extend this to also expect ENDBR at UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY at +0 for
> > STB_GLOBAL symbols, with the expectation that these are also machine
> > entry points (SYSCALL et. al.).
> >
> > This guarantees all machine entry points are covered by objtool rules at
> > the expense of a few additional false positives:
> >
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: startup_64+0x0: UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY without ENDBR
> > vmlinux.o: warning: objtool: start_cpu0+0x0: UNWIND_HINT_EMPTY without ENDBR
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
>
> I can't remember if this was my bright idea, but it feels kind of
> arbitrary. Hopefully there won't be a lot of false positives.

The existing UNWIND_HINT_IRET_REGS at +0 was your idea, I'm just trying
to cover more.

> Anyway, won't SYSCALL-type symbols typically be referenced elsewhere in
> the kernel and thus be found by the regular IBT validation?

They do indeed, and that's what we've been relying on. I just figured it
would be more consistent to have rules covering all machine entry
points.

(also all the Xen entry points are EMPTY like).

> Do you have any examples of where this warning would trigger if there
> were a missing ENDBR?

No.

Anyway, I can drop these first two patches for now.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-28 16:10    [W:0.047 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site