lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for Mar 18 (objtool)
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 05:24:06PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:18:07AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > As far as I could tell, this needs patches to the UBSAN support in gcc
> > and clang. I have opened bugs for each:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=94307
> > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45295
>
> So it sounds like this would replace the second UD2 with a "call
> some_ubsan_function()"?
>
> That might be slightly better, though it would still need an objtool
> change to ignore unreachable warnings for such calls.

Well, there are basically two modes (actually three as I've just
discovered on the clang bug): warn and fail. I hadn't found a way to get
"small" warns, so I wired up the fail path which injects an
"unreachable" as part of its logic.

> In the meantime I can still change objtool to ignore unreachable UD2s if
> there aren't any better ideas.

It'll still need the objtool change for CONFIG_UBSAN_TRAP, though based on
the clang bug discussion, I'll probably _also_ be adding CONFIG_UBSAN_WARN
which won't have an unreachable (and won't bloat the kernel). Testing
still under way... it is possible that CONFIG_UBSAN_TRAP will go away
in the future, though. If that happens, should I also remove the change
at that time?

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-26 06:58    [W:0.058 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site