1===========================================
2Control Flow Integrity Design Documentation
3===========================================
4
5This page documents the design of the :doc:`ControlFlowIntegrity` schemes
6supported by Clang.
7
8Forward-Edge CFI for Virtual Calls
9==================================
10
11This scheme works by allocating, for each static type used to make a virtual
12call, a region of read-only storage in the object file holding a bit vector
13that maps onto to the region of storage used for those virtual tables. Each
14set bit in the bit vector corresponds to the `address point`_ for a virtual
15table compatible with the static type for which the bit vector is being built.
16
17For example, consider the following three C++ classes:
18
19.. code-block:: c++
20
21  struct A {
22    virtual void f1();
23    virtual void f2();
24    virtual void f3();
25  };
26
27  struct B : A {
28    virtual void f1();
29    virtual void f2();
30    virtual void f3();
31  };
32
33  struct C : A {
34    virtual void f1();
35    virtual void f2();
36    virtual void f3();
37  };
38
39The scheme will cause the virtual tables for A, B and C to be laid out
40consecutively:
41
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
44
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
46
47The bit vector for static types A, B and C will look like this:
48
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
51
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
55
56Bit vectors are represented in the object file as byte arrays. By loading
57from indexed offsets into the byte array and applying a mask, a program can
58test bits from the bit set with a relatively short instruction sequence. Bit
59vectors may overlap so long as they use different bits. For the full details,
60see the `ByteArrayBuilder`_ class.
61
62In this case, assuming A is laid out at offset 0 in bit 0, B at offset 0 in
63bit 1 and C at offset 0 in bit 2, the byte array would look like this:
64
65.. code-block:: c++
66
67  char bits[] = { 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0 };
68
69To emit a virtual call, the compiler will assemble code that checks that
70the object's virtual table pointer is in-bounds and aligned and that the
71relevant bit is set in the bit vector.
72
73For example on x86 a typical virtual call may look like this:
74
75.. code-block:: none
76
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)
88    [...]
89  ca8511:       0f 0b                   ud2
90
91The compiler relies on co-operation from the linker in order to assemble
92the bit vectors for the whole program. It currently does this using LLVM's
93`type metadata`_ mechanism together with link-time optimization.
94
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
98
99Optimizations
100-------------
101
102The scheme as described above is the fully general variant of the scheme.
103Most of the time we are able to apply one or more of the following
104optimizations to improve binary size or performance.
105
106In fact, if you try the above example with the current version of the
107compiler, you will probably find that it will not use the described virtual
108table layout or machine instructions. Some of the optimizations we are about
109to introduce cause the compiler to use a different layout or a different
110sequence of machine instructions.
111
112Stripping Leading/Trailing Zeros in Bit Vectors
113~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
114
115If a bit vector contains leading or trailing zeros, we can strip them from
116the vector. The compiler will emit code to check if the pointer is in range
117of the region covered by ones, and perform the bit vector check using a
118truncated version of the bit vector. For example, the bit vectors for our
119example class hierarchy will be emitted like this:
120
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
123
124  A,  ,  , 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1,  ,
125  B,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 1,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,
126  C,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  , 1,  ,
127
128Short Inline Bit Vectors
129~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
130
131If the vector is sufficiently short, we can represent it as an inline constant
132on x86. This saves us a few instructions when reading the correct element
133of the bit vector.
134
135If the bit vector fits in 32 bits, the code looks like this:
136
137.. code-block:: none
138
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)
151    [...]
152     e0b:       0f 0b                   ud2
153
154Or if the bit vector fits in 64 bits:
155
156.. code-block:: none
157
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
166    11c7:       04 00 00
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)
171    [...]
172    11f5:       0f 0b                   ud2
173
174If the bit vector consists of a single bit, there is only one possible
175virtual table, and the check can consist of a single equality comparison:
176
177.. code-block:: none
178
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)
185     [...]
186     9d6:   0f 0b                   ud2
187
188Virtual Table Layout
189~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
190
191The compiler lays out classes of disjoint hierarchies in separate regions
192of the object file. At worst, bit vectors in disjoint hierarchies only
193need to cover their disjoint hierarchy. But the closer that classes in
194sub-hierarchies are laid out to each other, the smaller the bit vectors for
195those sub-hierarchies need to be (see "Stripping Leading/Trailing Zeros in Bit
196Vectors" above). The `GlobalLayoutBuilder`_ class is responsible for laying
197out the globals efficiently to minimize the sizes of the underlying bitsets.
198
199.. _GlobalLayoutBuilder: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/include/llvm/Transforms/IPO/LowerTypeTests.h
200
201Alignment
202~~~~~~~~~
203
204If all gaps between address points in a particular bit vector are multiples
205of powers of 2, the compiler can compress the bit vector by strengthening
206the alignment requirements of the virtual table pointer. For example, given
207this class hierarchy:
208
209.. code-block:: c++
210
211  struct A {
212    virtual void f1();
213    virtual void f2();
214  };
215
216  struct B : A {
217    virtual void f1();
218    virtual void f2();
219    virtual void f3();
220    virtual void f4();
221    virtual void f5();
222    virtual void f6();
223  };
224
225  struct C : A {
226    virtual void f1();
227    virtual void f2();
228  };
229
230The virtual tables will be laid out like this:
231
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
234
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
236
237Notice that each address point for A is separated by 4 words. This lets us
238emit a compressed bit vector for A that looks like this:
239
240.. csv-table::
241  :header: 2, 6, 10, 14
242
243  1, 1, 0, 1
244
245At call sites, the compiler will strengthen the alignment requirements by
246using a different rotate count. For example, on a 64-bit machine where the
247address points are 4-word aligned (as in A from our example), the ``rol``
248instruction may look like this:
249
250.. code-block:: none
251
252     dd2:       48 c1 c1 3b             rol    $0x3b,%rcx
253
254Padding to Powers of 2
255~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
256
257Of course, this alignment scheme works best if the address points are
258in fact aligned correctly. To make this more likely to happen, we insert
259padding between virtual tables that in many cases aligns address points to
260a power of 2. Specifically, our padding aligns virtual tables to the next
261highest power of 2 bytes; because address points for specific base classes
262normally appear at fixed offsets within the virtual table, this normally
263has the effect of aligning the address points as well.
264
265This scheme introduces tradeoffs between decreased space overhead for
266instructions and bit vectors and increased overhead in the form of padding. We
267therefore limit the amount of padding so that we align to no more than 128
268bytes. This number was found experimentally to provide a good tradeoff.
269
270Eliminating Bit Vector Checks for All-Ones Bit Vectors
271~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
272
273If the bit vector is all ones, the bit vector check is redundant; we simply
274need to check that the address is in range and well aligned. This is more
275likely to occur if the virtual tables are padded.
276
277Forward-Edge CFI for Virtual Calls by Interleaving Virtual Tables
278-----------------------------------------------------------------
279
280Dimitar et. al. proposed a novel approach that interleaves virtual tables in [1]_.
281This approach is more efficient in terms of space because padding and bit vectors are no longer needed.
282At the same time, it is also more efficient in terms of performance because in the interleaved layout
283address points of the virtual tables are consecutive, thus the validity check of a virtual
284vtable pointer is always a range check.
285
286At a high level, the interleaving scheme consists of three steps: 1) split virtual table groups into
287separate virtual tables, 2) order virtual tables by a pre-order traversal of the class hierarchy
288and 3) interleave virtual tables.
289
290The interleaving scheme implemented in LLVM is inspired by [1]_ but has its own
291enhancements (more in `Interleave virtual tables`_).
292
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.
294
295Split virtual table groups into separate virtual tables
296~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
297
298The Itanium C++ ABI glues multiple individual virtual tables for a class into a combined virtual table (virtual table group).
299The interleaving scheme, however, can only work with individual virtual tables so it must split the combined virtual tables first.
300In comparison, the old scheme does not require the splitting but it is more efficient when the combined virtual tables have been split.
301The `GlobalSplit`_ pass is responsible for splitting combined virtual tables into individual ones.
302
303.. _GlobalSplit: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/GlobalSplit.cpp
304
305Order virtual tables by a pre-order traversal of the class hierarchy
306~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
307
308This step is common to both the old scheme described above and the interleaving scheme.
309For the interleaving scheme, since the combined virtual tables have been split in the previous step,
310this step ensures that for any class all the compatible virtual tables will appear consecutively.
311For the old scheme, the same property may not hold since it may work on combined virtual tables.
312
313For example, consider the following four C++ classes:
314
315.. code-block:: c++
316
317  struct A {
318    virtual void f1();
319  };
320
321  struct B : A {
322    virtual void f1();
323    virtual void f2();
324  };
325
326  struct C : A {
327    virtual void f1();
328    virtual void f3();
329  };
330
331  struct D : B {
332    virtual void f1();
333    virtual void f2();
334  };
335
336This 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*.
337
338Interleave virtual tables
339~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
340
341This step is where the interleaving scheme deviates from the old scheme. Instead of laying out
342whole virtual tables in the previously computed order, the interleaving scheme lays out table
343entries of the virtual tables strategically to ensure the following properties:
344
345(1) offset-to-top and RTTI fields layout property
346
347The Itanium C++ ABI specifies that offset-to-top and RTTI fields appear at the offsets behind the
348address point. Note that libraries like libcxxabi do assume this property.
349
350(2) virtual function entry layout property
351
352For each virtual function the distance between an virtual table entry for this function and the corresponding
353address point is always the same. This property ensures that dynamic dispatch still works with the interleaving layout.
354
355Note that the interleaving scheme in the CFI implementation guarantees both properties above whereas the original scheme proposed
356in [1]_ only guarantees the second property.
357
358To illustrate how the interleaving algorithm works, let us continue with the running example.
359The algorithm first separates all the virtual table entries into two work lists. To do so,
360it starts by allocating two work lists, one initialized with all the offset-to-top entries of virtual tables in the order
361computed in the last step, one initialized with all the RTTI entries in the same order.
362
363.. csv-table:: Work list 1 Layout
364  :header: 0, 1, 2, 3
365
366  A::offset-to-top, B::offset-to-top, D::offset-to-top, C::offset-to-top
367
368
369.. csv-table:: Work list 2 layout
370  :header: 0, 1, 2, 3,
371
372  &A::rtti, &B::rtti, &D::rtti, &C::rtti
373
374Then for each virtual function the algorithm goes through all the virtual tables in the previously computed order
375to collect all the related entries into a virtual function list.
376After this step, there are the following virtual function lists:
377
378.. csv-table:: f1 list
379  :header: 0, 1, 2, 3
380
381  &A::f1, &B::f1, &D::f1, &C::f1
382
383
384.. csv-table:: f2 list
385  :header: 0, 1
386
387  &B::f2, &D::f2
388
389
390.. csv-table:: f3 list
391  :header: 0
392
393  &C::f3
394
395Next, the algorithm picks the longest remaining virtual function list and appends the whole list to the shortest work list
396until no function lists are left, and pads the shorter work list so that they are of the same length.
397In the example, f1 list will be first added to work list 1, then f2 list will be added
398to 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
399work list 2, a padding entry is added to the latter. After this step, the two work lists look like:
400
401.. csv-table:: Work list 1 Layout
402  :header: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
403
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
405
406
407.. csv-table:: Work list 2 layout
408  :header: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
409
410  &A::rtti, &B::rtti, &D::rtti, &C::rtti, &B::f2, &D::f2, &C::f3, padding
411
412Finally, the algorithm merges the two work lists into the interleaved layout by alternatingly
413moving the head of each list to the final layout. After this step, the final interleaved layout looks like:
414
415.. csv-table:: Interleaved layout
416  :header: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
417
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
419
420In 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.
421For the second property, let us look at f2 as an example. In the interleaved layout,
422there are two entries for f2: B::f2 and D::f2. The distance between &B::f2
423and 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).
424
425Forward-Edge CFI for Indirect Function Calls
426============================================
427
428Under forward-edge CFI for indirect function calls, each unique function
429type has its own bit vector, and at each call site we need to check that the
430function pointer is a member of the function type's bit vector. This scheme
431works in a similar way to forward-edge CFI for virtual calls, the distinction
432being that we need to build bit vectors of function entry points rather than
433of virtual tables.
434
435Unlike when re-arranging global variables, we cannot re-arrange functions
436in a particular order and base our calculations on the layout of the
437functions' entry points, as we have no idea how large a particular function
438will end up being (the function sizes could even depend on how we arrange
439the functions). Instead, we build a jump table, which is a block of code
440consisting of one branch instruction for each of the functions in the bit
441set that branches to the target function, and redirect any taken function
442addresses to the corresponding jump table entry. In this way, the distance
443between function entry points is predictable and controllable. In the object
444file's symbol table, the symbols for the target functions also refer to the
445jump table entries, so that addresses taken outside the module will pass
446any verification done inside the module.
447
448In 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
450addresses:
451
452.. code-block:: none
453
454  f:
455  mov 0, %eax
456  ret
457
458  g:
459  mov 1, %eax
460  ret
461
462  h:
463  mov 2, %eax
464  ret
465
466  foo:
467  mov f, %eax
468  mov g, %edx
469  mov h, %ecx
470  ret
471
472Our jump table will (conceptually) look like this:
473
474.. code-block:: none
475
476  f:
477  jmp .Ltmp0 ; 5 bytes
478  int3       ; 1 byte
479  int3       ; 1 byte
480  int3       ; 1 byte
481
482  g:
483  jmp .Ltmp1 ; 5 bytes
484  int3       ; 1 byte
485  int3       ; 1 byte
486  int3       ; 1 byte
487
488  h:
489  jmp .Ltmp2 ; 5 bytes
490  int3       ; 1 byte
491  int3       ; 1 byte
492  int3       ; 1 byte
493
494  .Ltmp0:
495  mov 0, %eax
496  ret
497
498  .Ltmp1:
499  mov 1, %eax
500  ret
501
502  .Ltmp2:
503  mov 2, %eax
504  ret
505
506  foo:
507  mov f, %eax
508  mov g, %edx
509  mov h, %ecx
510  ret
511
512Because the addresses of ``f``, ``g``, ``h`` are evenly spaced at a power of
5132, and function types do not overlap (unlike class types with base classes),
514we can normally apply the `Alignment`_ and `Eliminating Bit Vector Checks
515for All-Ones Bit Vectors`_ optimizations thus simplifying the check at each
516call site to a range and alignment check.
517
518Shared library support
519======================
520
521**EXPERIMENTAL**
522
523The basic CFI mode described above assumes that the application is a
524monolithic binary; at least that all possible virtual/indirect call
525targets and the entire class hierarchy are known at link time. The
526cross-DSO mode, enabled with **-f[no-]sanitize-cfi-cross-dso** relaxes
527this requirement by allowing virtual and indirect calls to cross the
528DSO boundary.
529
530Assuming the following setup: the binary consists of several
531instrumented and several uninstrumented DSOs. Some of them may be
532dlopen-ed/dlclose-d periodically, even frequently.
533
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
538     overhead).
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.
543
544In the monolithic scheme a call site is instrumented as
545
546.. code-block:: none
547
548   if (!InlinedFastCheck(f))
549     abort();
550   call *f
551
552In the cross-DSO scheme it becomes
553
554.. code-block:: none
555
556   if (!InlinedFastCheck(f))
557     __cfi_slowpath(CallSiteTypeId, f);
558   call *f
559
560CallSiteTypeId
561--------------
562
563``CallSiteTypeId`` is a stable process-wide identifier of the
564call-site type. For a virtual call site, the type in question is the class
565type; for an indirect function call it is the function signature. The
566mapping from a type to an identifier is an ABI detail. In the current,
567experimental, implementation the identifier of type T is calculated as
568follows:
569
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
573     64-bit integer.
574
575It is possible, but unlikely, that collisions in the
576``CallSiteTypeId`` hashing will result in weaker CFI checks that would
577still be conservatively correct.
578
579CFI_Check
580---------
581
582In the general case, only the target DSO knows whether the call to
583function ``f`` with type ``CallSiteTypeId`` is valid or not.  To
584export this information, every DSO implements
585
586.. code-block:: none
587
588   void __cfi_check(uint64 CallSiteTypeId, void *TargetAddr, void *DiagData)
589
590This function provides external modules with access to CFI checks for
591the targets inside this DSO.  For each known ``CallSiteTypeId``, this
592function performs an ``llvm.type.test`` with the corresponding type
593identifier. It reports an error if the type is unknown, or if the
594check fails. Depending on the values of compiler flags
595``-fsanitize-trap`` and ``-fsanitize-recover``, this function may
596print an error, abort and/or return to the caller. ``DiagData`` is an
597opaque pointer to the diagnostic information about the error, or
598``null`` if the caller does not provide this information.
599
600The basic implementation is a large switch statement over all values
601of CallSiteTypeId supported by this DSO, and each case is similar to
602the InlinedFastCheck() in the basic CFI mode.
603
604CFI Shadow
605----------
606
607To route CFI checks to the target DSO's __cfi_check function, a
608mapping from possible virtual / indirect call targets to the
609corresponding __cfi_check functions is maintained. This mapping is
610implemented as a sparse array of 2 bytes for every possible page (4096
611bytes) of memory. The table is kept readonly most of the time.
612
613There are 3 types of shadow values:
614
615  -  Address in a CFI-instrumented DSO.
616  -  Unchecked address (a “trusted” non-instrumented DSO). Encoded as
617     value 0xFFFF.
618  -  Invalid address (everything else). Encoded as value 0.
619
620For a CFI-instrumented DSO, a shadow value encodes the address of the
621__cfi_check function for all call targets in the corresponding memory
622page. If Addr is the target address, and V is the shadow value, then
623the address of __cfi_check is calculated as
624
625.. code-block:: none
626
627  __cfi_check = AlignUpTo(Addr, 4096) - (V + 1) * 4096
628
629This works as long as __cfi_check is aligned by 4096 bytes and located
630below any call targets in its DSO, but not more than 256MB apart from
631them.
632
633CFI_SlowPath
634------------
635
636The slow path check is implemented in a runtime support library as
637
638.. code-block:: none
639
640  void __cfi_slowpath(uint64 CallSiteTypeId, void *TargetAddr)
641  void __cfi_slowpath_diag(uint64 CallSiteTypeId, void *TargetAddr, void *DiagData)
642
643These functions loads a shadow value for ``TargetAddr``, finds the
644address of ``__cfi_check`` as described above and calls
645that. ``DiagData`` is an opaque pointer to diagnostic data which is
646passed verbatim to ``__cfi_check``, and ``__cfi_slowpath`` passes
647``nullptr`` instead.
648
649Compiler-RT library contains reference implementations of slowpath
650functions, but they have unresolvable issues with correctness and
651performance in the handling of dlopen(). It is recommended that
652platforms provide their own implementations, usually as part of libc
653or libdl.
654
655Position-independent executable requirement
656-------------------------------------------
657
658Cross-DSO CFI mode requires that the main executable is built as PIE.
659In non-PIE executables the address of an external function (taken from
660the main executable) is the address of that function’s PLT record in
661the main executable. This would break the CFI checks.
662
663Backward-edge CFI for return statements (RCFI)
664==============================================
665
666This section is a proposal. As of March 2017 it is not implemented.
667
668Backward-edge control flow (`RET` instructions) can be hijacked
669via overwriting the return address (`RA`) on stack.
670Various mitigation techniques (e.g. `SafeStack`_, `RFG`_, `Intel CET`_)
671try to detect or prevent `RA` corruption on stack.
672
673RCFI enforces the expected control flow in several different ways described below.
674RCFI heavily relies on LTO.
675
676Leaf Functions
677--------------
678If `f()` is a leaf function (i.e. it has no calls
679except maybe no-return calls) it can be called using a special calling convention
680that stores `RA` in a dedicated register `R` before the `CALL` instruction.
681`f()` does not spill `R` and does not use the `RET` instruction,
682instead it uses the value in `R` to `JMP` to `RA`.
683
684This flavour of CFI is *precise*, i.e. the function is guaranteed to return
685to the point exactly following the call.
686
687An alternative approach is to
688copy `RA` from stack to `R` in the first instruction of `f()`,
689then `JMP` to `R`.
690This approach is simpler to implement (does not require changing the caller)
691but weaker (there is a small window when `RA` is actually stored on stack).
692
693
694Functions called once
695---------------------
696Suppose `f()` is called in just one place in the program
697(assuming we can verify this in LTO mode).
698In this case we can replace the `RET` instruction with a `JMP` instruction
699with the immediate constant for `RA`.
700This will *precisely* enforce the return control flow no matter what is stored on stack.
701
702Another variant is to compare `RA` on stack with the known constant and abort
703if they don't match; then `JMP` to the known constant address.
704
705Functions called in a small number of call sites
706------------------------------------------------
707We may extend the above approach to cases where `f()`
708is called more than once (but still a small number of times).
709With LTO we know all possible values of `RA` and we check them
710one-by-one (or using binary search) against the value on stack.
711If the match is found, we `JMP` to the known constant address, otherwise abort.
712
713This protection is *near-precise*, i.e. it guarantees that the control flow will
714be transferred to one of the valid return addresses for this function,
715but not necessary to the point of the most recent `CALL`.
716
717General case
718------------
719For functions called multiple times a *return jump table* is constructed
720in the same manner as jump tables for indirect function calls (see above).
721The correct jump table entry (or it's index) is passed by `CALL` to `f()`
722(as an extra argument) and then spilled to stack.
723The `RET` instruction is replaced with a load of the jump table entry,
724jump table range check, and `JMP` to the jump table entry.
725
726This protection is also *near-precise*.
727
728Returns from functions called indirectly
729----------------------------------------
730
731If a function is called indirectly, the return jump table is constructed for the
732equivalence class of functions instead of a single function.
733
734Cross-DSO calls
735---------------
736Consider two instrumented DSOs, `A` and `B`. `A` defines `f()` and `B` calls it.
737
738This case will be handled similarly to the cross-DSO scheme using the slow path callback.
739
740Non-goals
741---------
742
743RCFI 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`).
747
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
751
752Hardware support
753================
754
755We believe that the above design can be efficiently implemented in hardware.
756A single new instruction added to an ISA would allow to perform the forward-edge CFI check
757with fewer bytes per check (smaller code size overhead) and potentially more
758efficiently. The current software-only instrumentation requires at least
75932-bytes per check (on x86_64).
760A hardware instruction may probably be less than ~ 12 bytes.
761Such instruction would check that the argument pointer is in-bounds,
762and is properly aligned, and if the checks fail it will either trap (in monolithic scheme)
763or call the slow path function (cross-DSO scheme).
764The bit vector lookup is probably too complex for a hardware implementation.
765
766.. code-block:: none
767
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).
772  //
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);
791  }
792
793An alternative and more compact encoding would not use `kFailedCheckTarget`,
794and will trap on check failure instead.
795This will allow us to fit the instruction into **8-9 bytes**.
796The cross-DSO checks will be performed by a trap handler and
797performance-critical ones will have to be black-listed and checked using the
798software-only scheme.
799
800Note that such hardware extension would be complementary to checks
801at the callee side, such as e.g. **Intel ENDBRANCH**.
802Moreover, CFI would have two benefits over ENDBRANCH: a) precision and b)
803ability to protect against invalid casts between polymorphic types.
804