linux-kernel - Re: 答复：[PATCH] perf core: Use KSTK_ESP() instead of 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: <54A6C34C02000078000C4AE4@mail.emea.novell.com>
Date:	Fri, 02 Jan 2015 16:11:56 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@...e.com>
To:	<luto@...capital.net>, <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	<chenggang.qcg@...baba-inc.com>, <chenggang.qin@...il.com>,
	<dsahern@...il.com>, <namhyung@...il.com>, <efault@....de>,
	<eranian@...gle.com>, <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	<yanmin.zhang@...el.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<arjan@...ux.intel.com>, <jolsa@...hat.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
	<paulus@...ba.org>, <chenggang.qcg@...bao.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 答复：[PATCH] perf core: Use KSTK_ESP() instead of pt_regs->sp while output user regs

>>> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> 12/31/14 3:00 AM >>>
>On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> Given how the x86_64* entry code works, using task_pt_regs from
>> anywhere except explicitly supported contexts (including exceptions
>> that originated in userspace and a small handful of system calls) is
>> asking for trouble.  NMI context is especially bad.
>>
>> How important is this feature, and which registers matter?  It might
>> be possible to use a dwarf unwinder on the kernel call stack to get
>> most of the regs from most contexts, and it might also be possible to
>> make small changes to the entry code to make it possible to get some
>> of the registers reliably, but it's not currently possible to safely
>> use task_pt_regs *at all* from NMI context unless you've at least
>> blacklisted a handful of origin RIP values that give dangerously bogus
>> results.  (Using do_nmi's regs parameter if user_mode_vm(regs) is a
>> different story.)
>
>It's actually worse than just knowing the interrupted kernel RIP.  If
>the call chain goes usermode -> IST exception -> NMI, then
>task_pt_regs is entirely uninitialized.  Assuming all the CFI
>annotations are correct, the unwinder could still do it from the
>kernel.
>
>Note that, as far as I know, Jan Beulich is the only person who uses
>the unwinder on kernel code.  Jan, how do you do this?

Trying to guess what you mean by "this": A stack switch gets expressed by
CFI annotations just like any other frame pointer adjustments. See for example
the CFI_DEF_CFA_REGISTER use in the SAVE_ARGS_IRQ macro.

If that wasn't your question, please be more precise.

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/