1 ===========================================
2 Control Flow Integrity Design Documentation
3 ===========================================
5 This page documents the design of the :doc:`ControlFlowIntegrity` schemes
8 Forward-Edge CFI for Virtual Calls
9 ==================================
11 This scheme works by allocating, for each static type used to make a virtual
12 call, a region of read-only storage in the object file holding a bit vector
13 that maps onto to the region of storage used for those virtual tables. Each
14 set bit in the bit vector corresponds to the `address point`_ for a virtual
15 table compatible with the static type for which the bit vector is being built.
17 For example, consider the following three C++ classes:
39 The scheme will cause the virtual tables for A, B and C to be laid out
42 .. csv-table:: Virtual Table Layout for A, B, C
43 :header: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
45 A::offset-to-top, &A::rtti, &A::f1, &A::f2, &A::f3, B::offset-to-top, &B::rtti, &B::f1, &B::f2, &B::f3, C::offset-to-top, &C::rtti, &C::f1, &C::f2, &C::f3
47 The bit vector for static types A, B and C will look like this:
49 .. csv-table:: Bit Vectors for A, B, C
50 :header: Class, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
52 A, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0
53 B, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
54 C, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0
56 Bit vectors are represented in the object file as byte arrays. By loading
57 from indexed offsets into the byte array and applying a mask, a program can
58 test bits from the bit set with a relatively short instruction sequence. Bit
59 vectors may overlap so long as they use different bits. For the full details,
60 see the `ByteArrayBuilder`_ class.
62 In this case, assuming A is laid out at offset 0 in bit 0, B at offset 0 in
63 bit 1 and C at offset 0 in bit 2, the byte array would look like this:
67 char bits[] = { 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0 };
69 To emit a virtual call, the compiler will assemble code that checks that
70 the object's virtual table pointer is in-bounds and aligned and that the
71 relevant bit is set in the bit vector.
73 For example on x86 a typical virtual call may look like this:
77 ca7fbb: 48 8b 0f mov (%rdi),%rcx
78 ca7fbe: 48 8d 15 c3 42 fb 07 lea 0x7fb42c3(%rip),%rdx
79 ca7fc5: 48 89 c8 mov %rcx,%rax
80 ca7fc8: 48 29 d0 sub %rdx,%rax
81 ca7fcb: 48 c1 c0 3d rol $0x3d,%rax
82 ca7fcf: 48 3d 7f 01 00 00 cmp $0x17f,%rax
83 ca7fd5: 0f 87 36 05 00 00 ja ca8511
84 ca7fdb: 48 8d 15 c0 0b f7 06 lea 0x6f70bc0(%rip),%rdx
85 ca7fe2: f6 04 10 10 testb $0x10,(%rax,%rdx,1)
86 ca7fe6: 0f 84 25 05 00 00 je ca8511
87 ca7fec: ff 91 98 00 00 00 callq *0x98(%rcx)
91 The compiler relies on co-operation from the linker in order to assemble
92 the bit vectors for the whole program. It currently does this using LLVM's
93 `type metadata`_ mechanism together with link-time optimization.
95 .. _address point: https://itanium-cxx-abi.github.io/cxx-abi/abi.html#vtable-general
96 .. _type metadata: https://llvm.org/docs/TypeMetadata.html
97 .. _ByteArrayBuilder: https://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/structllvm_1_1ByteArrayBuilder.html
102 The scheme as described above is the fully general variant of the scheme.
103 Most of the time we are able to apply one or more of the following
104 optimizations to improve binary size or performance.
106 In fact, if you try the above example with the current version of the
107 compiler, you will probably find that it will not use the described virtual
108 table layout or machine instructions. Some of the optimizations we are about
109 to introduce cause the compiler to use a different layout or a different
110 sequence of machine instructions.
112 Stripping Leading/Trailing Zeros in Bit Vectors
113 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
115 If a bit vector contains leading or trailing zeros, we can strip them from
116 the vector. The compiler will emit code to check if the pointer is in range
117 of the region covered by ones, and perform the bit vector check using a
118 truncated version of the bit vector. For example, the bit vectors for our
119 example class hierarchy will be emitted like this:
121 .. csv-table:: Bit Vectors for A, B, C
122 :header: Class, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
124 A, , , 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, ,
125 B, , , , , , , , 1, , , , , , ,
126 C, , , , , , , , , , , , , 1, ,
128 Short Inline Bit Vectors
129 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
131 If the vector is sufficiently short, we can represent it as an inline constant
132 on x86. This saves us a few instructions when reading the correct element
135 If the bit vector fits in 32 bits, the code looks like this:
139 dc2: 48 8b 03 mov (%rbx),%rax
140 dc5: 48 8d 15 14 1e 00 00 lea 0x1e14(%rip),%rdx
141 dcc: 48 89 c1 mov %rax,%rcx
142 dcf: 48 29 d1 sub %rdx,%rcx
143 dd2: 48 c1 c1 3d rol $0x3d,%rcx
144 dd6: 48 83 f9 03 cmp $0x3,%rcx
145 dda: 77 2f ja e0b <main+0x9b>
146 ddc: ba 09 00 00 00 mov $0x9,%edx
147 de1: 0f a3 ca bt %ecx,%edx
148 de4: 73 25 jae e0b <main+0x9b>
149 de6: 48 89 df mov %rbx,%rdi
150 de9: ff 10 callq *(%rax)
154 Or if the bit vector fits in 64 bits:
158 11a6: 48 8b 03 mov (%rbx),%rax
159 11a9: 48 8d 15 d0 28 00 00 lea 0x28d0(%rip),%rdx
160 11b0: 48 89 c1 mov %rax,%rcx
161 11b3: 48 29 d1 sub %rdx,%rcx
162 11b6: 48 c1 c1 3d rol $0x3d,%rcx
163 11ba: 48 83 f9 2a cmp $0x2a,%rcx
164 11be: 77 35 ja 11f5 <main+0xb5>
165 11c0: 48 ba 09 00 00 00 00 movabs $0x40000000009,%rdx
167 11ca: 48 0f a3 ca bt %rcx,%rdx
168 11ce: 73 25 jae 11f5 <main+0xb5>
169 11d0: 48 89 df mov %rbx,%rdi
170 11d3: ff 10 callq *(%rax)
174 If the bit vector consists of a single bit, there is only one possible
175 virtual table, and the check can consist of a single equality comparison:
179 9a2: 48 8b 03 mov (%rbx),%rax
180 9a5: 48 8d 0d a4 13 00 00 lea 0x13a4(%rip),%rcx
181 9ac: 48 39 c8 cmp %rcx,%rax
182 9af: 75 25 jne 9d6 <main+0x86>
183 9b1: 48 89 df mov %rbx,%rdi
184 9b4: ff 10 callq *(%rax)
191 The compiler lays out classes of disjoint hierarchies in separate regions
192 of the object file. At worst, bit vectors in disjoint hierarchies only
193 need to cover their disjoint hierarchy. But the closer that classes in
194 sub-hierarchies are laid out to each other, the smaller the bit vectors for
195 those sub-hierarchies need to be (see "Stripping Leading/Trailing Zeros in Bit
196 Vectors" above). The `GlobalLayoutBuilder`_ class is responsible for laying
197 out the globals efficiently to minimize the sizes of the underlying bitsets.
199 .. _GlobalLayoutBuilder: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/LowerTypeTests.h
204 If all gaps between address points in a particular bit vector are multiples
205 of powers of 2, the compiler can compress the bit vector by strengthening
206 the alignment requirements of the virtual table pointer. For example, given
207 this class hierarchy:
230 The virtual tables will be laid out like this:
232 .. csv-table:: Virtual Table Layout for A, B, C
233 :header: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
235 A::offset-to-top, &A::rtti, &A::f1, &A::f2, B::offset-to-top, &B::rtti, &B::f1, &B::f2, &B::f3, &B::f4, &B::f5, &B::f6, C::offset-to-top, &C::rtti, &C::f1, &C::f2
237 Notice that each address point for A is separated by 4 words. This lets us
238 emit a compressed bit vector for A that looks like this:
241 :header: 2, 6, 10, 14
245 At call sites, the compiler will strengthen the alignment requirements by
246 using a different rotate count. For example, on a 64-bit machine where the
247 address points are 4-word aligned (as in A from our example), the ``rol``
248 instruction may look like this:
252 dd2: 48 c1 c1 3b rol $0x3b,%rcx
254 Padding to Powers of 2
255 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
257 Of course, this alignment scheme works best if the address points are
258 in fact aligned correctly. To make this more likely to happen, we insert
259 padding between virtual tables that in many cases aligns address points to
260 a power of 2. Specifically, our padding aligns virtual tables to the next
261 highest power of 2 bytes; because address points for specific base classes
262 normally appear at fixed offsets within the virtual table, this normally
263 has the effect of aligning the address points as well.
265 This scheme introduces tradeoffs between decreased space overhead for
266 instructions and bit vectors and increased overhead in the form of padding. We
267 therefore limit the amount of padding so that we align to no more than 128
268 bytes. This number was found experimentally to provide a good tradeoff.
270 Eliminating Bit Vector Checks for All-Ones Bit Vectors
271 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
273 If the bit vector is all ones, the bit vector check is redundant; we simply
274 need to check that the address is in range and well aligned. This is more
275 likely to occur if the virtual tables are padded.
277 Forward-Edge CFI for Virtual Calls by Interleaving Virtual Tables
278 -----------------------------------------------------------------
280 Dimitar et. al. proposed a novel approach that interleaves virtual tables in [1]_.
281 This approach is more efficient in terms of space because padding and bit vectors are no longer needed.
282 At the same time, it is also more efficient in terms of performance because in the interleaved layout
283 address points of the virtual tables are consecutive, thus the validity check of a virtual
284 vtable pointer is always a range check.
286 At a high level, the interleaving scheme consists of three steps: 1) split virtual table groups into
287 separate virtual tables, 2) order virtual tables by a pre-order traversal of the class hierarchy
288 and 3) interleave virtual tables.
290 The interleaving scheme implemented in LLVM is inspired by [1]_ but has its own
291 enhancements (more in `Interleave virtual tables`_).
293 .. [1] `Protecting C++ Dynamic Dispatch Through VTable Interleaving <https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~lerner/papers/ivtbl-ndss16.pdf>`_. Dimitar Bounov, Rami Gökhan Kıcı, Sorin Lerner.
295 Split virtual table groups into separate virtual tables
296 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
298 The Itanium C++ ABI glues multiple individual virtual tables for a class into a combined virtual table (virtual table group).
299 The interleaving scheme, however, can only work with individual virtual tables so it must split the combined virtual tables first.
300 In comparison, the old scheme does not require the splitting but it is more efficient when the combined virtual tables have been split.
301 The `GlobalSplit`_ pass is responsible for splitting combined virtual tables into individual ones.
303 .. _GlobalSplit: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalSplit.cpp
305 Order virtual tables by a pre-order traversal of the class hierarchy
306 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
308 This step is common to both the old scheme described above and the interleaving scheme.
309 For the interleaving scheme, since the combined virtual tables have been split in the previous step,
310 this step ensures that for any class all the compatible virtual tables will appear consecutively.
311 For the old scheme, the same property may not hold since it may work on combined virtual tables.
313 For example, consider the following four C++ classes:
336 This step will arrange the virtual tables for A, B, C, and D in the order of *vtable-of-A, vtable-of-B, vtable-of-D, vtable-of-C*.
338 Interleave virtual tables
339 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
341 This step is where the interleaving scheme deviates from the old scheme. Instead of laying out
342 whole virtual tables in the previously computed order, the interleaving scheme lays out table
343 entries of the virtual tables strategically to ensure the following properties:
345 (1) offset-to-top and RTTI fields layout property
347 The Itanium C++ ABI specifies that offset-to-top and RTTI fields appear at the offsets behind the
348 address point. Note that libraries like libcxxabi do assume this property.
350 (2) virtual function entry layout property
352 For each virtual function the distance between a virtual table entry for this function and the corresponding
353 address point is always the same. This property ensures that dynamic dispatch still works with the interleaving layout.
355 Note that the interleaving scheme in the CFI implementation guarantees both properties above whereas the original scheme proposed
356 in [1]_ only guarantees the second property.
358 To illustrate how the interleaving algorithm works, let us continue with the running example.
359 The algorithm first separates all the virtual table entries into two work lists. To do so,
360 it starts by allocating two work lists, one initialized with all the offset-to-top entries of virtual tables in the order
361 computed in the last step, one initialized with all the RTTI entries in the same order.
363 .. csv-table:: Work list 1 Layout
366 A::offset-to-top, B::offset-to-top, D::offset-to-top, C::offset-to-top
369 .. csv-table:: Work list 2 layout
372 &A::rtti, &B::rtti, &D::rtti, &C::rtti
374 Then for each virtual function the algorithm goes through all the virtual tables in the previously computed order
375 to collect all the related entries into a virtual function list.
376 After this step, there are the following virtual function lists:
378 .. csv-table:: f1 list
381 &A::f1, &B::f1, &D::f1, &C::f1
384 .. csv-table:: f2 list
390 .. csv-table:: f3 list
395 Next, the algorithm picks the longest remaining virtual function list and appends the whole list to the shortest work list
396 until no function lists are left, and pads the shorter work list so that they are of the same length.
397 In the example, f1 list will be first added to work list 1, then f2 list will be added
398 to work list 2, and finally f3 list will be added to the work list 2. Since work list 1 now has one more entry than
399 work list 2, a padding entry is added to the latter. After this step, the two work lists look like:
401 .. csv-table:: Work list 1 Layout
402 :header: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
404 A::offset-to-top, B::offset-to-top, D::offset-to-top, C::offset-to-top, &A::f1, &B::f1, &D::f1, &C::f1
407 .. csv-table:: Work list 2 layout
408 :header: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
410 &A::rtti, &B::rtti, &D::rtti, &C::rtti, &B::f2, &D::f2, &C::f3, padding
412 Finally, the algorithm merges the two work lists into the interleaved layout by alternatingly
413 moving the head of each list to the final layout. After this step, the final interleaved layout looks like:
415 .. csv-table:: Interleaved layout
416 :header: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
418 A::offset-to-top, &A::rtti, B::offset-to-top, &B::rtti, D::offset-to-top, &D::rtti, C::offset-to-top, &C::rtti, &A::f1, &B::f2, &B::f1, &D::f2, &D::f1, &C::f3, &C::f1, padding
420 In the above interleaved layout, each virtual table's offset-to-top and RTTI are always adjacent, which shows that the layout has the first property.
421 For the second property, let us look at f2 as an example. In the interleaved layout,
422 there are two entries for f2: B::f2 and D::f2. The distance between &B::f2
423 and its address point D::offset-to-top (the entry immediately after &B::rtti) is 5 entry-length, so is the distance between &D::f2 and C::offset-to-top (the entry immediately after &D::rtti).
425 Forward-Edge CFI for Indirect Function Calls
426 ============================================
428 Under forward-edge CFI for indirect function calls, each unique function
429 type has its own bit vector, and at each call site we need to check that the
430 function pointer is a member of the function type's bit vector. This scheme
431 works in a similar way to forward-edge CFI for virtual calls, the distinction
432 being that we need to build bit vectors of function entry points rather than
435 Unlike when re-arranging global variables, we cannot re-arrange functions
436 in a particular order and base our calculations on the layout of the
437 functions' entry points, as we have no idea how large a particular function
438 will end up being (the function sizes could even depend on how we arrange
439 the functions). Instead, we build a jump table, which is a block of code
440 consisting of one branch instruction for each of the functions in the bit
441 set that branches to the target function, and redirect any taken function
442 addresses to the corresponding jump table entry. In this way, the distance
443 between function entry points is predictable and controllable. In the object
444 file's symbol table, the symbols for the target functions also refer to the
445 jump table entries, so that addresses taken outside the module will pass
446 any verification done inside the module.
448 In more concrete terms, suppose we have three functions ``f``, ``g``,
449 ``h`` which are all of the same type, and a function foo that returns their
472 Our jump table will (conceptually) look like this:
512 Because the addresses of ``f``, ``g``, ``h`` are evenly spaced at a power of
513 2, and function types do not overlap (unlike class types with base classes),
514 we can normally apply the `Alignment`_ and `Eliminating Bit Vector Checks
515 for All-Ones Bit Vectors`_ optimizations thus simplifying the check at each
516 call site to a range and alignment check.
518 Shared library support
519 ======================
523 The basic CFI mode described above assumes that the application is a
524 monolithic binary; at least that all possible virtual/indirect call
525 targets and the entire class hierarchy are known at link time. The
526 cross-DSO mode, enabled with **-f[no-]sanitize-cfi-cross-dso** relaxes
527 this requirement by allowing virtual and indirect calls to cross the
530 Assuming the following setup: the binary consists of several
531 instrumented and several uninstrumented DSOs. Some of them may be
532 dlopen-ed/dlclose-d periodically, even frequently.
534 - Calls made from uninstrumented DSOs are not checked and just work.
535 - Calls inside any instrumented DSO are fully protected.
536 - Calls between different instrumented DSOs are also protected, with
537 a performance penalty (in addition to the monolithic CFI
539 - Calls from an instrumented DSO to an uninstrumented one are
540 unchecked and just work, with performance penalty.
541 - Calls from an instrumented DSO outside of any known DSO are
542 detected as CFI violations.
544 In the monolithic scheme a call site is instrumented as
548 if (!InlinedFastCheck(f))
552 In the cross-DSO scheme it becomes
556 if (!InlinedFastCheck(f))
557 __cfi_slowpath(CallSiteTypeId, f);
563 ``CallSiteTypeId`` is a stable process-wide identifier of the
564 call-site type. For a virtual call site, the type in question is the class
565 type; for an indirect function call it is the function signature. The
566 mapping from a type to an identifier is an ABI detail. In the current,
567 experimental, implementation the identifier of type T is calculated as
570 - Obtain the mangled name for "typeinfo name for T".
571 - Calculate MD5 hash of the name as a string.
572 - Reinterpret the first 8 bytes of the hash as a little-endian
575 It is possible, but unlikely, that collisions in the
576 ``CallSiteTypeId`` hashing will result in weaker CFI checks that would
577 still be conservatively correct.
582 In the general case, only the target DSO knows whether the call to
583 function ``f`` with type ``CallSiteTypeId`` is valid or not. To
584 export this information, every DSO implements
588 void __cfi_check(uint64 CallSiteTypeId, void *TargetAddr, void *DiagData)
590 This function provides external modules with access to CFI checks for
591 the targets inside this DSO. For each known ``CallSiteTypeId``, this
592 function performs an ``llvm.type.test`` with the corresponding type
593 identifier. It reports an error if the type is unknown, or if the
594 check fails. Depending on the values of compiler flags
595 ``-fsanitize-trap`` and ``-fsanitize-recover``, this function may
596 print an error, abort and/or return to the caller. ``DiagData`` is an
597 opaque pointer to the diagnostic information about the error, or
598 ``null`` if the caller does not provide this information.
600 The basic implementation is a large switch statement over all values
601 of CallSiteTypeId supported by this DSO, and each case is similar to
602 the InlinedFastCheck() in the basic CFI mode.
607 To route CFI checks to the target DSO's __cfi_check function, a
608 mapping from possible virtual / indirect call targets to the
609 corresponding __cfi_check functions is maintained. This mapping is
610 implemented as a sparse array of 2 bytes for every possible page (4096
611 bytes) of memory. The table is kept readonly most of the time.
613 There are 3 types of shadow values:
615 - Address in a CFI-instrumented DSO.
616 - Unchecked address (a “trusted” non-instrumented DSO). Encoded as
618 - Invalid address (everything else). Encoded as value 0.
620 For a CFI-instrumented DSO, a shadow value encodes the address of the
621 __cfi_check function for all call targets in the corresponding memory
622 page. If Addr is the target address, and V is the shadow value, then
623 the address of __cfi_check is calculated as
627 __cfi_check = AlignUpTo(Addr, 4096) - (V + 1) * 4096
629 This works as long as __cfi_check is aligned by 4096 bytes and located
630 below any call targets in its DSO, but not more than 256MB apart from
636 The slow path check is implemented in a runtime support library as
640 void __cfi_slowpath(uint64 CallSiteTypeId, void *TargetAddr)
641 void __cfi_slowpath_diag(uint64 CallSiteTypeId, void *TargetAddr, void *DiagData)
643 These functions loads a shadow value for ``TargetAddr``, finds the
644 address of ``__cfi_check`` as described above and calls
645 that. ``DiagData`` is an opaque pointer to diagnostic data which is
646 passed verbatim to ``__cfi_check``, and ``__cfi_slowpath`` passes
649 Compiler-RT library contains reference implementations of slowpath
650 functions, but they have unresolvable issues with correctness and
651 performance in the handling of dlopen(). It is recommended that
652 platforms provide their own implementations, usually as part of libc
655 Position-independent executable requirement
656 -------------------------------------------
658 Cross-DSO CFI mode requires that the main executable is built as PIE.
659 In non-PIE executables the address of an external function (taken from
660 the main executable) is the address of that function’s PLT record in
661 the main executable. This would break the CFI checks.
663 Backward-edge CFI for return statements (RCFI)
664 ==============================================
666 This section is a proposal. As of March 2017 it is not implemented.
668 Backward-edge control flow (`RET` instructions) can be hijacked
669 via overwriting the return address (`RA`) on stack.
670 Various mitigation techniques (e.g. `SafeStack`_, `RFG`_, `Intel CET`_)
671 try to detect or prevent `RA` corruption on stack.
673 RCFI enforces the expected control flow in several different ways described below.
674 RCFI heavily relies on LTO.
678 If `f()` is a leaf function (i.e. it has no calls
679 except maybe no-return calls) it can be called using a special calling convention
680 that stores `RA` in a dedicated register `R` before the `CALL` instruction.
681 `f()` does not spill `R` and does not use the `RET` instruction,
682 instead it uses the value in `R` to `JMP` to `RA`.
684 This flavour of CFI is *precise*, i.e. the function is guaranteed to return
685 to the point exactly following the call.
687 An alternative approach is to
688 copy `RA` from stack to `R` in the first instruction of `f()`,
690 This approach is simpler to implement (does not require changing the caller)
691 but weaker (there is a small window when `RA` is actually stored on stack).
694 Functions called once
695 ---------------------
696 Suppose `f()` is called in just one place in the program
697 (assuming we can verify this in LTO mode).
698 In this case we can replace the `RET` instruction with a `JMP` instruction
699 with the immediate constant for `RA`.
700 This will *precisely* enforce the return control flow no matter what is stored on stack.
702 Another variant is to compare `RA` on stack with the known constant and abort
703 if they don't match; then `JMP` to the known constant address.
705 Functions called in a small number of call sites
706 ------------------------------------------------
707 We may extend the above approach to cases where `f()`
708 is called more than once (but still a small number of times).
709 With LTO we know all possible values of `RA` and we check them
710 one-by-one (or using binary search) against the value on stack.
711 If the match is found, we `JMP` to the known constant address, otherwise abort.
713 This protection is *near-precise*, i.e. it guarantees that the control flow will
714 be transferred to one of the valid return addresses for this function,
715 but not necessary to the point of the most recent `CALL`.
719 For functions called multiple times a *return jump table* is constructed
720 in the same manner as jump tables for indirect function calls (see above).
721 The correct jump table entry (or its index) is passed by `CALL` to `f()`
722 (as an extra argument) and then spilled to stack.
723 The `RET` instruction is replaced with a load of the jump table entry,
724 jump table range check, and `JMP` to the jump table entry.
726 This protection is also *near-precise*.
728 Returns from functions called indirectly
729 ----------------------------------------
731 If a function is called indirectly, the return jump table is constructed for the
732 equivalence class of functions instead of a single function.
736 Consider two instrumented DSOs, `A` and `B`. `A` defines `f()` and `B` calls it.
738 This case will be handled similarly to the cross-DSO scheme using the slow path callback.
743 RCFI does not protect `RET` instructions:
744 * in non-instrumented DSOs,
745 * in instrumented DSOs for functions that are called from non-instrumented DSOs,
746 * embedded into other instructions (e.g. `0f4fc3 cmovg %ebx,%eax`).
748 .. _SafeStack: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/SafeStack.html
749 .. _RFG: https://xlab.tencent.com/en/2016/11/02/return-flow-guard
750 .. _Intel CET: https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2016/06/09/intel-release-new-technology-specifications-protect-rop-attacks
755 We believe that the above design can be efficiently implemented in hardware.
756 A single new instruction added to an ISA would allow to perform the forward-edge CFI check
757 with fewer bytes per check (smaller code size overhead) and potentially more
758 efficiently. The current software-only instrumentation requires at least
759 32-bytes per check (on x86_64).
760 A hardware instruction may probably be less than ~ 12 bytes.
761 Such instruction would check that the argument pointer is in-bounds,
762 and is properly aligned, and if the checks fail it will either trap (in monolithic scheme)
763 or call the slow path function (cross-DSO scheme).
764 The bit vector lookup is probably too complex for a hardware implementation.
768 // This instruction checks that 'Ptr'
769 // * is aligned by (1 << kAlignment) and
770 // * is inside [kRangeBeg, kRangeBeg+(kRangeSize<<kAlignment))
771 // and if the check fails it jumps to the given target (slow path).
773 // 'Ptr' is a register, pointing to the virtual function table
774 // or to the function which we need to check. We may require an explicit
775 // fixed register to be used.
776 // 'kAlignment' is a 4-bit constant.
777 // 'kRangeSize' is a ~20-bit constant.
778 // 'kRangeBeg' is a PC-relative constant (~28 bits)
779 // pointing to the beginning of the allowed range for 'Ptr'.
780 // 'kFailedCheckTarget': is a PC-relative constant (~28 bits)
781 // representing the target to branch to when the check fails.
782 // If kFailedCheckTarget==0, the process will trap
783 // (monolithic binary scheme).
784 // Otherwise it will jump to a handler that implements `CFI_SlowPath`
785 // (cross-DSO scheme).
786 CFI_Check(Ptr, kAlignment, kRangeSize, kRangeBeg, kFailedCheckTarget) {
787 if (Ptr < kRangeBeg ||
788 Ptr >= kRangeBeg + (kRangeSize << kAlignment) ||
789 Ptr & ((1 << kAlignment) - 1))
790 Jump(kFailedCheckTarget);
793 An alternative and more compact encoding would not use `kFailedCheckTarget`,
794 and will trap on check failure instead.
795 This will allow us to fit the instruction into **8-9 bytes**.
796 The cross-DSO checks will be performed by a trap handler and
797 performance-critical ones will have to be black-listed and checked using the
798 software-only scheme.
800 Note that such hardware extension would be complementary to checks
801 at the callee side, such as e.g. **Intel ENDBRANCH**.
802 Moreover, CFI would have two benefits over ENDBRANCH: a) precision and b)
803 ability to protect against invalid casts between polymorphic types.