linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Fix rbp saving in pt

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]

Message-Id: <4D26D2C2020000780002AECB@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date:	Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:45:53 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To:	"Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Stephane Eranian" <eranian@...gle.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@...hat.com>,
	"Soeren Sandmann Pedersen" <sandmann@...hat.com>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Fix rbp saving in pt_regs on irq
	 entry

>>> On 06.01.11 at 18:12, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:58:54PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 06.01.11 at 17:54, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:39:39PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 06.01.11 at 17:22, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:10:55PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On 06.01.11 at 16:45, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Before we had:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 	leaveq
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > 	CFI_RESTORE             rbp
>> >> >> > 	CFI_DEF_CFA_REGISTER    rsp
>> >> >> > 	CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET   -8
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > So CFI_RESTORE means rbp has now the value of the base frame of
>> >> >> > the calling frame (the base frame pointer of the interrupted proc) ?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> No - all it means is that %rbp now has its original (caller or
>> >> >> interrupted procedure) value again (i.e. an unwinder should not
>> >> >> try to read it from the stack [or other previously recorded
>> >> >> location] anymore).
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > And what follows means that rsp-8 points to the return address?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> No - .cfi_def_cfa_register says which register serves as the frame
>> >> >> pointer, and .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset says to adjust the offset from
>> >> >> the frame pointer to the top [or bottom] of frame. At any time
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> 	CFA = cfa_register + cfa_offset
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> with CFA being what all locations on the stack are expressed
>> >> >> relative to.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Ok.
>> >> > 
>> >> > So here rsp points to pt_regs::r11
>> >> > 
>> >> > I don't understand why locations relative to the stack must be
>> >> > expressed here by taking rsp - 8 as a base.
>> >> 
>> >> Nothing says rsp-8. The annotations merely say to set the base
>> >> register to rsp and to *adjust* the offset by -8 (after all, that's
>> >> what the leaveq instruction does).
>> > 
>> > Ah! So CFA acts like a virtual frame base pointer right?
>> 
>> Correct.
> 
> Ah great. I was starting to prepare for the case you come to stab me :)
> 
> So what do you think about that:
> 
>         leaveq
> 
>         CFI_RESTORE             rbp
>         CFI_DEF_CFA_REGISTER    rsp
>         CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET   -8
> 
>        /* we did not save rbx, restore only from ARGOFFSET */
>        addq $8, %rsp
>        CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET   -16
> 
> 
> Does that look correct to you? We increased rsp to start recovering
> the regs from the right place, but the frame pointer of the current
> proc must stay what it was.

As you hinted in your subsequent reply - it's -8 here (that's
why the directive is named *adjust*; there are other
directives allowing to *set* an offset).

> Now I don't understand how this is all useful as this is not a normal
> proc but an interruption. We can't get back the return address from
> the CFA. Or am I missing something?

Unwind annotations, when written correctly, allow unwinding
through all kinds of execution flows, including interrupts or
exceptions as well as including stack switches.

Jan

--
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/