[PATCH v2 4/9] x86/cfi: Standardize on common "CFI:" prefix for CFI reports

Kees Cook posted 9 patches 4 weeks, 1 day ago
[PATCH v2 4/9] x86/cfi: Standardize on common "CFI:" prefix for CFI reports
Posted by Kees Cook 4 weeks, 1 day ago
Use a regular "CFI:" prefix for CFI reports during alternatives setup,
including reporting when nothing has happened (i.e. CONFIG_FINEIBT=n).

Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
---
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
index 7bde68247b5f..d8f4ac95b4df 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
@@ -1266,26 +1266,26 @@ static __init int cfi_parse_cmdline(char *str)
 		} else if (!strcmp(str, "norand")) {
 			cfi_rand = false;
 		} else if (!strcmp(str, "warn")) {
-			pr_alert("CFI mismatch non-fatal!\n");
+			pr_alert("CFI: mismatch non-fatal!\n");
 			cfi_warn = true;
 		} else if (!strcmp(str, "paranoid")) {
 			if (cfi_mode == CFI_FINEIBT) {
 				cfi_paranoid = true;
 			} else {
-				pr_err("Ignoring paranoid; depends on fineibt.\n");
+				pr_err("CFI: ignoring paranoid; depends on fineibt.\n");
 			}
 		} else if (!strcmp(str, "bhi")) {
 #ifdef CONFIG_FINEIBT_BHI
 			if (cfi_mode == CFI_FINEIBT) {
 				cfi_bhi = true;
 			} else {
-				pr_err("Ignoring bhi; depends on fineibt.\n");
+				pr_err("CFI: ignoring bhi; depends on fineibt.\n");
 			}
 #else
-			pr_err("Ignoring bhi; depends on FINEIBT_BHI=y.\n");
+			pr_err("CFI: ignoring bhi; depends on FINEIBT_BHI=y.\n");
 #endif
 		} else {
-			pr_err("Ignoring unknown cfi option (%s).", str);
+			pr_err("CFI: Ignoring unknown option (%s).", str);
 		}
 
 		str = next;
@@ -1757,7 +1757,7 @@ static void __apply_fineibt(s32 *start_retpoline, s32 *end_retpoline,
 	switch (cfi_mode) {
 	case CFI_OFF:
 		if (builtin)
-			pr_info("Disabling CFI\n");
+			pr_info("CFI: disabled\n");
 		return;
 
 	case CFI_KCFI:
@@ -1766,7 +1766,8 @@ static void __apply_fineibt(s32 *start_retpoline, s32 *end_retpoline,
 			goto err;
 
 		if (builtin)
-			pr_info("Using kCFI\n");
+			pr_info("CFI: Using %sretpoline kCFI\n",
+				cfi_rand ? "rehashed " : "");
 		return;
 
 	case CFI_FINEIBT:
@@ -2005,6 +2006,8 @@ bool decode_fineibt_insn(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long *target, u32 *type)
 static void __apply_fineibt(s32 *start_retpoline, s32 *end_retpoline,
 			    s32 *start_cfi, s32 *end_cfi, bool builtin)
 {
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CFI) && builtin)
+		pr_info("CFI: Using standard kCFI\n");
 }
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT
-- 
2.34.1
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] x86/cfi: Standardize on common "CFI:" prefix for CFI reports
Posted by Nathan Chancellor 4 weeks ago
On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 08:46:43PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Use a regular "CFI:" prefix for CFI reports during alternatives setup,
> including reporting when nothing has happened (i.e. CONFIG_FINEIBT=n).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>

Obviously minor but I had pointed out on v1 that there appears to be
some inconsistency within the diff around capitalization, "ignoring" vs.
"Ignoring".

> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> index 7bde68247b5f..d8f4ac95b4df 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
> @@ -1266,26 +1266,26 @@ static __init int cfi_parse_cmdline(char *str)
>  		} else if (!strcmp(str, "norand")) {
>  			cfi_rand = false;
>  		} else if (!strcmp(str, "warn")) {
> -			pr_alert("CFI mismatch non-fatal!\n");
> +			pr_alert("CFI: mismatch non-fatal!\n");
>  			cfi_warn = true;
>  		} else if (!strcmp(str, "paranoid")) {
>  			if (cfi_mode == CFI_FINEIBT) {
>  				cfi_paranoid = true;
>  			} else {
> -				pr_err("Ignoring paranoid; depends on fineibt.\n");
> +				pr_err("CFI: ignoring paranoid; depends on fineibt.\n");
>  			}
>  		} else if (!strcmp(str, "bhi")) {
>  #ifdef CONFIG_FINEIBT_BHI
>  			if (cfi_mode == CFI_FINEIBT) {
>  				cfi_bhi = true;
>  			} else {
> -				pr_err("Ignoring bhi; depends on fineibt.\n");
> +				pr_err("CFI: ignoring bhi; depends on fineibt.\n");
>  			}
>  #else
> -			pr_err("Ignoring bhi; depends on FINEIBT_BHI=y.\n");
> +			pr_err("CFI: ignoring bhi; depends on FINEIBT_BHI=y.\n");
>  #endif
>  		} else {
> -			pr_err("Ignoring unknown cfi option (%s).", str);
> +			pr_err("CFI: Ignoring unknown option (%s).", str);
>  		}
>  
>  		str = next;
> @@ -1757,7 +1757,7 @@ static void __apply_fineibt(s32 *start_retpoline, s32 *end_retpoline,
>  	switch (cfi_mode) {
>  	case CFI_OFF:
>  		if (builtin)
> -			pr_info("Disabling CFI\n");
> +			pr_info("CFI: disabled\n");
>  		return;
>  
>  	case CFI_KCFI:
> @@ -1766,7 +1766,8 @@ static void __apply_fineibt(s32 *start_retpoline, s32 *end_retpoline,
>  			goto err;
>  
>  		if (builtin)
> -			pr_info("Using kCFI\n");
> +			pr_info("CFI: Using %sretpoline kCFI\n",
> +				cfi_rand ? "rehashed " : "");
>  		return;
>  
>  	case CFI_FINEIBT:
> @@ -2005,6 +2006,8 @@ bool decode_fineibt_insn(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long *target, u32 *type)
>  static void __apply_fineibt(s32 *start_retpoline, s32 *end_retpoline,
>  			    s32 *start_cfi, s32 *end_cfi, bool builtin)
>  {
> +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CFI) && builtin)
> +		pr_info("CFI: Using standard kCFI\n");
>  }
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_KERNEL_IBT
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>
Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] x86/cfi: Standardize on common "CFI:" prefix for CFI reports
Posted by Kees Cook 4 weeks ago
On Thu, Sep 04, 2025 at 11:40:04AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 08:46:43PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Use a regular "CFI:" prefix for CFI reports during alternatives setup,
> > including reporting when nothing has happened (i.e. CONFIG_FINEIBT=n).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
> > ---
> 
> Reviewed-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
> 
> Obviously minor but I had pointed out on v1 that there appears to be
> some inconsistency within the diff around capitalization, "ignoring" vs.
> "Ignoring".

Oops! Sorry, I've fixed that locally now.

-- 
Kees Cook