Re: Alternative CET ABI

[Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.nagy () arm com>]

The 07/30/2020 18:41, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 6:02 PM Florian Weimer <fweimer () redhat com> wrote:
> > Functions no longer start with the ENDBR64 prefix.  Instead, the link
> > editor produces a PLT entry with an ENDBR64 prefix if it detects any
> > address-significant relocation for it.  The PLT entry performs a NOTRACK
> > jump to the target address.  This assumes that the target address is
> > subject to RELRO, of course, so that redirection is not possible.
> > Without address-significant relocations, the link editor produces a PLT
> > entry without the ENDBR64 prefix (but still with the NOTRACK jump), or
> > perhaps no PLT entry at all.
>
> How would this interact with function pointer comparisons? As in, if
> library A exports a function func1 without referencing it, and
> libraries B and C both take references to func1, would they end up
> with different function pointers (pointing to their respective PLT
> entries)? Would this mean that the behavior of a program that compares

ld.so only needs to generate one plt entry
for a function in a process and that entry
can provided the canonical address that is
loaded from some got entry when the address
is used, so there is double indirection, but
it works.

> function pointers obtained through different shared libraries might
> change?
>
> I guess you could maybe canonicalize function pointers somehow, but
> that'd probably at least break dlclose(), right?
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you 
are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other 
person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.