linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 May 2015 09:32:12 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] Compile-time stack frame pointer validation

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 12:01:58AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 03:54:25PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > stackvalidate: arch/x86/lib/memmove_64.o: return instruction outside of a function at .altinstr_replacement+0x5
> 
> That must be something like this:
> 
> 0000000000000000 <.altinstr_replacement>:
>    0:   48 89 d1                mov    %rdx,%rcx
>    3:   f3 a4                   rep movsb %ds:(%rsi),%es:(%rdi)
>    5:   c3                      retq
> 
> right?
> 
> In any case, anything with alternatives is probably a false positive
> because even if instructions appear outside of the containing function,
> they get patched in and are actually inside. Jump offsets get fixed up
> properly too. Should, at least :-)

Hm, alternatives do complicate things a bit.  It *is* a false positive,
but not necessarily because its part of an alternative instruction
block.

The above code would be patched into memmove(), which is a leaf function
because it doesn't call any other functions.  Leaf functions don't need
frame pointer logic, so we can ignore them.

If instead the above code were patched into a non-leaf function, we'd
have to change it to restore the frame pointer before returning.

-- 
Josh
--
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/