On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 10:45:15AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > I'm digging through the macros to sort this out, but IIUC, an example of > the problem is: > > so the caller is expecting "unsigned int (*)(void)" but the prototype > of __static_call_return0 is "long (*)(void)": > > long __static_call_return0(void); > > Could we simply declare a type-matched ret0 trampoline too? That'll work for this case, but the next case the function will have arguments we'll need even more nonsense... And as stated in that other email, there's tb_stub_func() having the exact same problem as well. The x86_64 CFI patches had a work-around for this, that could trivially be lifted I suppose. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
