linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.15 112/128] powerpc/modules: Dont try to restore r2 after a sibling call

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:   Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:24:13 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.15 112/128] powerpc/modules: Dont try to restore r2 after a sibling call

4.15-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>


[ Upstream commit b9eab08d012fa093947b230f9a87257c27fb829b ]

When attempting to load a livepatch module, I got the following error:

  module_64: patch_module: Expect noop after relocate, got 3c820000

The error was triggered by the following code in
unregister_netdevice_queue():

  14c:   00 00 00 48     b       14c <unregister_netdevice_queue+0x14c>
                         14c: R_PPC64_REL24      net_set_todo
  150:   00 00 82 3c     addis   r4,r2,0

GCC didn't insert a nop after the branch to net_set_todo() because it's
a sibling call, so it never returns.  The nop isn't needed after the
branch in that case.

Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Acked-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-and-tested-by: Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h |    1 +
 arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c          |   12 +++++++++++-
 arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c         |    5 +++++
 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ int patch_branch(unsigned int *addr, uns
 int patch_instruction(unsigned int *addr, unsigned int instr);
 
 int instr_is_relative_branch(unsigned int instr);
+int instr_is_relative_link_branch(unsigned int instr);
 int instr_is_branch_to_addr(const unsigned int *instr, unsigned long addr);
 unsigned long branch_target(const unsigned int *instr);
 unsigned int translate_branch(const unsigned int *dest,
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/module_64.c
@@ -487,7 +487,17 @@ static bool is_early_mcount_callsite(u32
    restore r2. */
 static int restore_r2(u32 *instruction, struct module *me)
 {
-	if (is_early_mcount_callsite(instruction - 1))
+	u32 *prev_insn = instruction - 1;
+
+	if (is_early_mcount_callsite(prev_insn))
+		return 1;
+
+	/*
+	 * Make sure the branch isn't a sibling call.  Sibling calls aren't
+	 * "link" branches and they don't return, so they don't need the r2
+	 * restore afterwards.
+	 */
+	if (!instr_is_relative_link_branch(*prev_insn))
 		return 1;
 
 	if (*instruction != PPC_INST_NOP) {
--- a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
@@ -302,6 +302,11 @@ int instr_is_relative_branch(unsigned in
 	return instr_is_branch_iform(instr) || instr_is_branch_bform(instr);
 }
 
+int instr_is_relative_link_branch(unsigned int instr)
+{
+	return instr_is_relative_branch(instr) && (instr & BRANCH_SET_LINK);
+}
+
 static unsigned long branch_iform_target(const unsigned int *instr)
 {
 	signed long imm;