linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 May 2015 11:25:37 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:03:37AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Yeah, so many of these seem to be 'leaf only' functions: functions
> > that don't ever call functions themselves.
> >
> > So lets assume we always have CONFIG_FRAME_POINTERS=y.
> >
> > If they don't set up a frame pointer then they in essence won't show
> > up in the call chain - but normally they wouldn't because they call
> > nothing.
> >
> > If they trigger an exception/fault or if they get hit by an interrupt
> > then I think we'll still correctly walk the stack - just those
> > functions might be missing from the deterministic call chain, right?
> > (it will still show up as a '?' entry.)
> 
> I've never quite understood what the '?' means.

It basically means "here's a function address we found on the stack,
which may or may not have been called."  It's needed because stack
walking isn't currently 100% reliable.

> > If they crash then we'll see them because the crashing RIP will be
> > printed.
> >
> > So I'm wondering what the x86 policy here should be: to create frame
> > pointers in them or not. Cc:-ed a few more gents for thoughts.
> >
> 
> I think it would be nice to have full DWARF unwind support for
> everything at some point.  Unfortunately, I don't see any easy path to
> getting there.  It doesn't help that AFAIK no one has ever proposed a
> usable in-kernel DWARF unwinder.
> 
> It also doesn't help that writing correct CFI annotations in inline
> asm can be very complicated.
> 
> I think that ia64 manages to have complete unwind support.  How did
> they manage it?
> 
> If we had an unwinder, it would be relatively straightforward to write
> something perf-based that would frequently check that we can unwind
> all the way out of an NMI back to userspace and warn if we couldn't.

I agree that DWARF unwind support would be nice.  I have some plans
about how to achieve that in future patch sets.  It includes several
pieces:

- compile-time DWARF data validation (using some similar approaches to
  this patch set)

- run time DWARF data validation, including:
  - a DWARF unwinder which doesn't blindly trust any of the DWARF data
  - ensuring DWARF and frame pointer data are consistent with each other
  - ensuring it can walk all the way to the bottom of the stack
  - a DEBUG option which validates the stack periodically from an NMI
    and/or schedule()

-- 
Josh
--
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/