Re: [PATCH] closures: CLOSURE_CALLBACK() to fix type punning

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 10:07:25PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> Control flow integrity is now checking that type signatures match on
> indirect function calls. That breaks closures, which embed a work_struct
> in a closure in such a way that a closure_fn may also be used as a
> workqueue fn by the underlying closure code.
> So we have to change closure fns to take a work_struct as their
> argument - but that results in a loss of clarity, as closure fns have
> different semantics from normal workqueue functions (they run owning a
> ref on the closure, which must be released with continue_at() or
> closure_return()).
> Thus, this patc introduces CLOSURE_CALLBACK() and closure_type() macros
> as suggested by Kees, to smooth things over a bit.
> Suggested-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for doing this! This looks reasonable to me. I look forward to
being able to do fancier CFI prototype partitioning in the future...

Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


Kees Cook

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux