Call sites written in asm performing indirect call, they need to setup
label register (t2/x7) with correct label.
Currently first kernel was compiled with `-save-temps` option and
normalized function signature string is captured and then placed at the
asm callsite.
TODO: to write a macro wrapper with toolchain support.
Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
---
arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
index 2660faf52232..598e17e800ae 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
@@ -389,6 +389,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)
load_per_cpu t0, irq_stack_ptr, t1
li t1, IRQ_STACK_SIZE
add sp, t0, t1
+ lui t2, %lpad_hash("FvP7pt_regsE")
jalr a1
/* Switch back to the thread shadow call stack */
--
2.43.0
On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:36:55PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> Call sites written in asm performing indirect call, they need to setup
> label register (t2/x7) with correct label.
>
> Currently first kernel was compiled with `-save-temps` option and
> normalized function signature string is captured and then placed at the
> asm callsite.
>
> TODO: to write a macro wrapper with toolchain support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> index 2660faf52232..598e17e800ae 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -389,6 +389,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)
> load_per_cpu t0, irq_stack_ptr, t1
> li t1, IRQ_STACK_SIZE
> add sp, t0, t1
> + lui t2, %lpad_hash("FvP7pt_regsE")
Ah, I see. The plan is to hardcode the signatures in assembly code and
keep them manually in sync with C code. When we implemented KCFI, we
thought this would become extremely tedious to maintain after a while.
Do you have any plans to add KCFI-style __kcfi_typeid_<function> symbols
that would allow labels to be determined from C type signatures instead?
Sami
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 03:33:51PM +0000, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 04:36:55PM -0700, Deepak Gupta wrote:
>> Call sites written in asm performing indirect call, they need to setup
>> label register (t2/x7) with correct label.
>>
>> Currently first kernel was compiled with `-save-temps` option and
>> normalized function signature string is captured and then placed at the
>> asm callsite.
>>
>> TODO: to write a macro wrapper with toolchain support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>> index 2660faf52232..598e17e800ae 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>> @@ -389,6 +389,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)
>> load_per_cpu t0, irq_stack_ptr, t1
>> li t1, IRQ_STACK_SIZE
>> add sp, t0, t1
>> + lui t2, %lpad_hash("FvP7pt_regsE")
>
>Ah, I see. The plan is to hardcode the signatures in assembly code and
>keep them manually in sync with C code. When we implemented KCFI, we
>thought this would become extremely tedious to maintain after a while.
This is extremely tedious and not maintainable and primary reason (among
other secondary ones) to keep this patch series as RFC.
>Do you have any plans to add KCFI-style __kcfi_typeid_<function> symbols
>that would allow labels to be determined from C type signatures instead?
Yes something on similar lines. I have asked toolchain folks (Monk and Kito)
on how best to support this.
>
>Sami
On 25.07.25 01:36, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> Call sites written in asm performing indirect call, they need to setup
> label register (t2/x7) with correct label.
>
> Currently first kernel was compiled with `-save-temps` option and
> normalized function signature string is captured and then placed at the
> asm callsite.
>
> TODO: to write a macro wrapper with toolchain support.
>
> Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> index 2660faf52232..598e17e800ae 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -389,6 +389,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)
> load_per_cpu t0, irq_stack_ptr, t1
> li t1, IRQ_STACK_SIZE
> add sp, t0, t1
> + lui t2, %lpad_hash("FvP7pt_regsE")
In patch 1 you use lpad 0 due to missing tool support for signature hashing.
Wouldn't it be preferable to have a first patch series introducing
landing pad support with lpad 0 and once tool support for signature
hashing has landed create a second patch series using tags?
Such a first patch series would not have to be an RFC but might be
merged soon.
Best regards
Heinrich
> jalr a1
>
> /* Switch back to the thread shadow call stack */
>
On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 08:23:44AM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
>On 25.07.25 01:36, Deepak Gupta wrote:
>>Call sites written in asm performing indirect call, they need to setup
>>label register (t2/x7) with correct label.
>>
>>Currently first kernel was compiled with `-save-temps` option and
>>normalized function signature string is captured and then placed at the
>>asm callsite.
>>
>>TODO: to write a macro wrapper with toolchain support.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Deepak Gupta <debug@rivosinc.com>
>>---
>> arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>>diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>>index 2660faf52232..598e17e800ae 100644
>>--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>>+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/entry.S
>>@@ -389,6 +389,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(call_on_irq_stack)
>> load_per_cpu t0, irq_stack_ptr, t1
>> li t1, IRQ_STACK_SIZE
>> add sp, t0, t1
>>+ lui t2, %lpad_hash("FvP7pt_regsE")
>
>In patch 1 you use lpad 0 due to missing tool support for signature hashing.
>
>Wouldn't it be preferable to have a first patch series introducing
>landing pad support with lpad 0 and once tool support for signature
>hashing has landed create a second patch series using tags?
>
>Such a first patch series would not have to be an RFC but might be
>merged soon.
It's mostly about security guarantees. Coarser grained cfi (only landing pad)
has been proved many times not that effective. Kernel is a monolithic piece of
code. If there is a good chance of adoption anywhere for labeled landing pads,
its kernel. If it becomes a long pole, it's a possible direction to go back to
unlabeled landing pad.
>
>Best regards
>
>Heinrich
>
>> jalr a1
>> /* Switch back to the thread shadow call stack */
>>
>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.