| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 20:45:22 +0530
From: Anurag Aggarwal <anurag19aggarwal@...il.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
Cc: Anurag Aggarwal <a.anurag@...sung.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"cpgs@...sung.com" <cpgs@...sung.com>,
"narendra.m1@...sung.com" <narendra.m1@...sung.com>,
"poorva.s@...sung.com" <poorva.s@...sung.com>,
"naveen.sel@...sung.com" <naveen.sel@...sung.com>,
"ashish.kalra@...sung.com" <ashish.kalra@...sung.com>,
"mohammad.a2@...sung.com" <mohammad.a2@...sung.com>,
"rajat.suri@...sung.com" <rajat.suri@...sung.com>,
"naveenkrishna.ch@...il.com" <naveenkrishna.ch@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
"nico@...aro.org" <nico@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] ARM : unwinder : Prevent data abort due to stack overflow
>>if (unlikely(check) &&
>> *vsp >= (unsigned long *)ctrl->sp_high))
Good idea, It can help in optimizing the code and will leave code more readable
and it will be easy to maintain also.
>>Does the code check anywhere that SP is word-aligned?
>>
>>That should probably be checked if it's not done already.
I think this should be handled in separate patch
I would also like to hear more your ideas for the file
Regards
Anurag
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 11:26:25AM +0000, Anurag Aggarwal wrote:
>> While unwinding backtrace, stack overflow is possible. This stack
>> overflow can sometimes lead to data abort in system if the area after
>> stack is not mapped to physical memory.
>>
>> To prevent this problem from happening, execute the instructions that
>> can cause a data abort in separate helper functions, where a check for
>> feasibility is made before reading each word from the stack.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anurag Aggarwal <a.anurag@...sung.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c | 127 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>> 1 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
>> index 00df012..94f6ef4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
>> @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__aeabi_unwind_cpp_pr2);
>> struct unwind_ctrl_block {
>> unsigned long vrs[16]; /* virtual register set */
>> const unsigned long *insn; /* pointer to the current instructions word */
>> + unsigned long sp_high; /* highest value of sp allowed*/
>> int entries; /* number of entries left to interpret */
>> int byte; /* current byte number in the instructions word */
>> };
>> @@ -235,6 +236,86 @@ static unsigned long unwind_get_byte(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl)
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +/* Before poping a register check whether it is feasible or not */
>> +static int unwind_pop_register(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl,
>> + unsigned long **vsp, unsigned int reg)
>> +{
>> + if (*vsp >= (unsigned long *)ctrl->sp_high)
>> + return -URC_FAILURE;
>> +
>> + ctrl->vrs[reg] = *(*vsp)++;
>> + return URC_OK;
>
> It occurred to me that your optimisation can still be implemented on
> top on this.
>
> If you add an extra flag parameter to unwind_pop_register telling it
> whether to do checking or not, I think that the compiler and/or
> CPU branch predictor should be able to do a pretty good job of
> optimising the common case. Until we get near sp_high, if(check) will
> branch the same way every time.
>
> if (unlikely(check) &&
> *vsp >= (unsigned long *)ctrl->sp_high))
>
> would make sense, in fact.
>
>
> I think this brings most of the benefit, without needing to code the
> insn exec rules twice.
>
> I'm still not sure the optimisation benefits us much, but I think
> that would be a tidier way of doing it if you want to try.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Helper functions to execute the instructions */
>> +static int unwind_exec_pop_subset_r4_to_r13(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl,
>> + unsigned long mask)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long *vsp = (unsigned long *)ctrl->vrs[SP];
>> + int load_sp, reg = 4;
>> +
>> + load_sp = mask & (1 << (13 - 4));
>> + while (mask) {
>> + if (mask & 1)
>> + if (unwind_pop_register(ctrl, &vsp, reg))
>> + return -URC_FAILURE;
>> + mask >>= 1;
>> + reg++;
>> + }
>> + if (!load_sp)
>> + ctrl->vrs[SP] = (unsigned long)vsp;
>> +
>> + pr_debug("%s: fp = %08lx sp = %08lx lr = %08lx pc = %08lx\n", __func__,
>> + ctrl->vrs[FP], ctrl->vrs[SP], ctrl->vrs[LR], ctrl->vrs[PC]);
>
> Minor-ish nit: you now duplicate this same pr_debug() in many places.
> Apologies, I didn't spot that in the previous review.
>
> What about something like this:
>
> static int unwind_exec_insn(...)
> {
> int ret = URC_OK;
>
> } else if (...)
> ret = unwind_exec_pop_subset_r4_to_r13(...);
> if (ret)
> goto error;
> else ...
>
> pr_debug(...);
>
> error:
> return ret;
> }
>
> Then everything returns through the same pr_debug() after the insn has
> been executed.
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -329,13 +382,13 @@ static int unwind_exec_insn(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl)
>> */
>> int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
>> {
>> - unsigned long high, low;
>> + unsigned long low;
>> const struct unwind_idx *idx;
>> struct unwind_ctrl_block ctrl;
>>
>> - /* only go to a higher address on the stack */
>> + /* store the highest address on the stack to avoid crossing it*/
>> low = frame->sp;
>> - high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE);
>> + ctrl.sp_high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE);
>
> Does the code check anywhere that SP is word-aligned?
>
> That should probably be checked if it's not done already.
>
> I have some unrelated changes I want to make in this file (which is
> part of why I'm being pushy about getting things nice and clean) ... so
> I'm happy to follow up with that as a separate patch later. It's a
> separate issue, really. It doesn't necessarily belong in this patch.
>
> Cheers
> ---Dave
--
Anurag Aggarwal
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists