[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0fd55e156195440bb1d815dd8300894b@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 12:57:07 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Russell King' <linux@...linux.org.uk>
CC: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, 'Jiangfeng Xiao'
<xiaojiangfeng@...wei.com>, "arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>, "haibo.li@...iatek.com"
<haibo.li@...iatek.com>, "angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com"
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>, "amergnat@...libre.com"
<amergnat@...libre.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org"
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "douzhaolei@...wei.com"
<douzhaolei@...wei.com>, "gustavoars@...nel.org" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
"jpoimboe@...nel.org" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, "kepler.chenxin@...wei.com"
<kepler.chenxin@...wei.com>, "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com"
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "nixiaoming@...wei.com"
<nixiaoming@...wei.com>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"wangbing6@...wei.com" <wangbing6@...wei.com>, "wangfangpeng1@...wei.com"
<wangfangpeng1@...wei.com>, "jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ARM: unwind: improve unwinders for noreturn case
From: Russell King
> Sent: 21 March 2024 12:23
...
> > That might mean you can get the BL in the middle of a function
> > but where the following instruction is for the 'no stack frame'
> > side of the branch.
> > That is very likely to break any stack offset calculations.
>
> No it can't. At any one point in the function, the stack has to be in
> a well defined state, so that access to local variables can work, and
> also the stack can be correctly unwound. If there exists a point in
> the function body which can be reached where the stack could be in two
> different states, then the stack can't be restored to the parent
> context.
Actually you can get there with a function that has a lot of args.
So you can have:
if (...) {
push x
bl func
add %sp, #8
}
code;
which is fine.
But if 'func' is 'noreturn' then the 'add %sp, #8' can be discarded
and then the saved LR is that of 'code' - but the stack offset is wrong.
> > > This is where the problem lies - because the link register value
> > > created by the BL instruction will point to the instruction after the
> > > BL which will _not_ part of the function that invoked the BL. That
> > > will probably cause issues for the ELF unwinder, which means this
> > > issue probably goes beyond _just_ printing the function name.
> >
> > Isn't this already in the unwinder?
> > A BL itself isn't going to fault with PC = next-instruction.
>
> You are missing the fact that the PC can be the saved LR, and thus
> can very well be the next instruction.
A PC from LR will always be the next instruction.
It is only the PC from a fault frame that is the current one.
The unwinder probably need to be told which one it has.
(Or add 4 the fault frame PC so that the unwinder can subtract
4 from it.)
At least (I don't think) there are any functions where the
called code is responsible for removing arguments.
That is a whole different bag of worms.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists