| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20131108132119.GB2602@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 13:21:19 +0000
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Anurag Aggarwal <a.anurag@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, naveen.sel@...sung.com,
linux@....linux.org.uk, narendra.m1@...sung.com, nico@...aro.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cpgs@...sung.com,
anurag19aggarwal@...il.com, naveenkrishna.ch@...il.com,
rajat.suri@...sung.com, mohammad.a2@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: unwinder: Handle Stackoverflow in unwind_exec_insn
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:20:48PM +0530, Anurag Aggarwal wrote:
> Altough stack overflow is expected in unwind_exec_insn, but in cases when area beyond stack is not mapped to physical memory this can cause data abort.
>
> To avoid above condition handle stack overflow in unwind_exec_insn by checking vsp pointer from top of stack
This looks worthwhile, but this patch duplicates the same check in
many places, making the code harder to read and maintain than
necessary. It would be a good opportunity for a bit of refactoring,
since we've already tried to fix these backtrace overrun issues
at least once in the past (not 100% successfully ...)
Really, there is a single common check needed: every time we want to
read a word from the stack, we need to check that word is within
the proper stack bounds before doing the read.
At the start of the backtrace, we should determine the thread stack
bounds for the thread. Those bounds should be fixed for the whole
backtrace; it makes sense to store them in the unwind_ctrl_block
structure, so that called functions can see them.
Then a helper can be written that does the correct bounds check and
reads a word from the stack, using the current frame's base virtual
SP and the thread stack bounds.
Then we just need to use that helper whenever we want to read a
word from the stack.
Cheers
---Dave
> Signed-off-by: Anurag Aggarwal <a.anurag@...sung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c | 23 +++++++++++++++--------
> 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
> index 00df012..d8b8721 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
> @@ -241,6 +241,10 @@ static unsigned long unwind_get_byte(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl)
> static int unwind_exec_insn(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl)
> {
> unsigned long insn = unwind_get_byte(ctrl);
> + unsigned long high, low;
> + unsigned long *vsp = (unsigned long *)ctrl->vrs[SP];
> + low = ctrl->vrs[SP];
> + high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE);
>
> pr_debug("%s: insn = %08lx\n", __func__, insn);
>
> @@ -263,27 +267,27 @@ static int unwind_exec_insn(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl)
>
> /* pop R4-R15 according to mask */
> load_sp = mask & (1 << (13 - 4));
> - while (mask) {
> + while (mask && vsp < high) {
> if (mask & 1)
> ctrl->vrs[reg] = *vsp++;
> mask >>= 1;
> reg++;
> }
> - if (!load_sp)
> + if (!load_sp && vsp < high)
> ctrl->vrs[SP] = (unsigned long)vsp;
> } else if ((insn & 0xf0) == 0x90 &&
> (insn & 0x0d) != 0x0d)
> ctrl->vrs[SP] = ctrl->vrs[insn & 0x0f];
> else if ((insn & 0xf0) == 0xa0) {
> - unsigned long *vsp = (unsigned long *)ctrl->vrs[SP];
> int reg;
>
> /* pop R4-R[4+bbb] */
> - for (reg = 4; reg <= 4 + (insn & 7); reg++)
> + for (reg = 4; (reg <= 4 + (insn & 7)) && (vsp < high; reg++)
> ctrl->vrs[reg] = *vsp++;
> - if (insn & 0x80)
> + if (insn & 0x80 && vsp < high)
> ctrl->vrs[14] = *vsp++;
> - ctrl->vrs[SP] = (unsigned long)vsp;
> + if (vsp < high)
> + ctrl->vrs[SP] = (unsigned long)vsp;
> } else if (insn == 0xb0) {
> if (ctrl->vrs[PC] == 0)
> ctrl->vrs[PC] = ctrl->vrs[LR];
> @@ -301,13 +305,14 @@ static int unwind_exec_insn(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl)
> }
>
> /* pop R0-R3 according to mask */
> - while (mask) {
> + while (mask && vsp < high) {
> if (mask & 1)
> ctrl->vrs[reg] = *vsp++;
> mask >>= 1;
> reg++;
> }
> - ctrl->vrs[SP] = (unsigned long)vsp;
> + if (vsp < high)
> + ctrl->vrs[SP] = (unsigned long)vsp;
> } else if (insn == 0xb2) {
> unsigned long uleb128 = unwind_get_byte(ctrl);
>
> @@ -317,6 +322,8 @@ static int unwind_exec_insn(struct unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl)
> return -URC_FAILURE;
> }
>
> + if (vsp >= high)
> + return -URC_FAILURE;
> pr_debug("%s: fp = %08lx sp = %08lx lr = %08lx pc = %08lx\n", __func__,
> ctrl->vrs[FP], ctrl->vrs[SP], ctrl->vrs[LR], ctrl->vrs[PC]);
>
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists