[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 18:36:28 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Kernel Hardening
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Oscar Carter <oscar.carter@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing: Use linker magic instead of recasting
ftrace_ops_list_func()
On Wed, 17 Jun 2020 23:30:07 +0200
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > +/* Defined by vmlinux.lds.h see the commment above arch_ftrace_ops_list_func for details */
> > +void ftrace_ops_list_func(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> > + struct ftrace_ops *op, struct pt_regs *regs);
> [...]
> > +void arch_ftrace_ops_list_func(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip)
> > {
>
> Well, it's not like the function cast itself is the part that's
> problematic for CFI; the problematic part is when you actually make a
> C function call (in particular an indirect one) where the destination
> is compiled with a prototype that is different from the prototype used
> at the call site. Doing this linker hackery isn't really any better
> than shutting up the compiler warning by piling on enough casts or
> whatever. (There should be some combination of casts that'll shut up
> this warning, right?)
It's not called by C, it's called by assembly.
>
> IIUC the real issue here is that ftrace_func_t is defined as a fixed
> type, but actually has different types depending on the architecture?
> If so, it might be cleaner to define ftrace_func_t differently
> depending on architecture, or something like that?
There's functions that use this type.
When you register a function to be used by the function tracer (that
will have 4 parameters). If the arch supports it, it will call it
directly from the trampoline in assembly, but if it does not, then the
C code will only let assembly call the two parameter version, that will
call the 4 parameter function (adding NULLs to the extra two arguments).
>
> And if that's not feasible, I think it would be better to at least
> replace this linker trickery with straightforward
> shut-up-the-compiler-casts - it'd be much easier to understand what's
> actually going on that way.
OK, what's the way to shut up the compiler for it, and we can have that
instead.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
