[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 18:41:40 +0200
From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com, x86-64-abi@...glegroups.com,
Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy@....com>
Subject: Re: Alternative CET ABI
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:02 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com> wrote:
> Functions no longer start with the ENDBR64 prefix. Instead, the link
> editor produces a PLT entry with an ENDBR64 prefix if it detects any
> address-significant relocation for it. The PLT entry performs a NOTRACK
> jump to the target address. This assumes that the target address is
> subject to RELRO, of course, so that redirection is not possible.
> Without address-significant relocations, the link editor produces a PLT
> entry without the ENDBR64 prefix (but still with the NOTRACK jump), or
> perhaps no PLT entry at all.
How would this interact with function pointer comparisons? As in, if
library A exports a function func1 without referencing it, and
libraries B and C both take references to func1, would they end up
with different function pointers (pointing to their respective PLT
entries)? Would this mean that the behavior of a program that compares
function pointers obtained through different shared libraries might
change?
I guess you could maybe canonicalize function pointers somehow, but
that'd probably at least break dlclose(), right?
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.
