linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: unwind: improve unwinders for noreturn case

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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:08:02 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
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

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 12:57:07PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> 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.

No you can't.... and that isn't even Arm code. Arm doesn't use %sp.
Moreover, that "bl" will stomp over the link register, meaning this
function can not return.

> 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.

If func is noreturn, then the remainder of that path isn't expected
to be executed, so anything that happens after the "bl" is irrelevant.

> A PC from LR will always be the next instruction.
> It is only the PC from a fault frame that is the current one.

That sentence makes no sense to me, as I don't think it's even proper
English, so I can't parse it.

> 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.)

That's basically what I said.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!