On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 10:31:43PM +0100, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Fixed upstream:
> https://objfw.nil.im/info/262baf76e7e66bc4
> https://objfw.nil.im/info/d73a388ecaf73b2a
>
> New release:
> https://objfw.nil.im/downloads/objfw-1.0.10.tar.gz
>
Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Fixed upstream:
> https://objfw.nil.im/info/262baf76e7e66bc4
> https://objfw.nil.im/info/d73a388ecaf73b2a
>
> New release:
> https://objfw.nil.im/downloads/objfw-1.0.10.tar.gz
> https://objfw.nil.im/downloads/objfw-1.0.10.tar.gz.sig
>
> Am 24.02.24 um 22:17 schrieb
Am 24.02.24 um 23:22 schrieb Mark Kettenis:
This is how the hardware behaves; see the documentation for
PSTATE.BTYPE in Part D of the ARM Architecture Reference Manual
(document DDI0487).
The difference is that this will allow an attacker to exploit a "BR"
type branch (jump) to jump to the
> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 22:31:43 +0100
> From: Jonathan Schleifer
>
> Fixed upstream:
> https://objfw.nil.im/info/262baf76e7e66bc4
> https://objfw.nil.im/info/d73a388ecaf73b2a
>
> New release:
> https://objfw.nil.im/downloads/objfw-1.0.10.tar.gz
>
Fixed upstream:
https://objfw.nil.im/info/262baf76e7e66bc4
https://objfw.nil.im/info/d73a388ecaf73b2a
New release:
https://objfw.nil.im/downloads/objfw-1.0.10.tar.gz
https://objfw.nil.im/downloads/objfw-1.0.10.tar.gz.sig
Am 24.02.24 um 22:17 schrieb Mark Kettenis:
Ah, right. What happens in
> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 21:40:53 +0100
> From: Jonathan Schleifer
>
> Am 24.02.24 um 21:30 schrieb Mark Kettenis:
>
> > Unless we explicitly mark them as not, yes, they will use IBT (but not
> > Shadow Stack).
>
> Ah cool!
>
> > No. Tail call elimination will use a *direct* branch, which
Am 24.02.24 um 21:30 schrieb Mark Kettenis:
Unless we explicitly mark them as not, yes, they will use IBT (but not
Shadow Stack).
Ah cool!
No. Tail call elimination will use a *direct* branch, which doesn't
need a landing pad at all.
Not necessarily - I've seen tail call elimination on
> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:01:06 +0100
> From: Theo Buehler
>
> This adds missing landing pads for amd64 and arm64. Not sure if for
> upstream a dance using _CET_ENDBR would be preferable. For the
> port I kept it simple.
>
> ld: warning: objc_msg_lookup: missing endbr64
> ld: warning:
> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 21:03:34 +0100
> From: Jonathan Schleifer
Hi Jonathan,
>
> Am 24.02.24 um 20:01 schrieb Theo Buehler:
>
> > This adds missing landing pads for amd64 and arm64. Not sure if for
> > upstream a dance using _CET_ENDBR would be preferable. For the
> > port I kept it
Am 24.02.24 um 20:01 schrieb Theo Buehler:
This adds missing landing pads for amd64 and arm64. Not sure if for
upstream a dance using _CET_ENDBR would be preferable. For the
port I kept it simple.
ld: warning: objc_msg_lookup: missing endbr64
ld: warning: objc_msg_lookup_stret: missing
10 matches
Mail list logo