| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:24:52 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: lttng-dev <lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: stack validation warning on lttng-modules bytecode interpreter
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 08:01:09PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jun 15, 2016, at 3:38 PM, Josh Poimboeuf jpoimboe@...hat.com wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:13:39PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> ----- On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:18 PM, Josh Poimboeuf jpoimboe@...hat.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 04:55:16PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> >> Hi Josh,
> >> >>
> >> >> I notice that with gcc 6.1.1, kernel 4.6, with
> >> >> CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION=y, building lttng-modules master
> >> >> at commit 6c09dd94 gives this warning:
> >> >>
> >> >> lttng-modules/lttng-filter-interpreter.o: warning: objtool:
> >> >> lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode()+0x58: sibling call from callable instruction
> >> >> with changed frame pointer
> >> >>
> >> >> this object implements a bytecode interpreter using an explicit
> >> >> jump table (see
> >> >> https://github.com/lttng/lttng-modules/blob/master/lttng-filter-interpreter.c)
> >> >>
> >> >> If I define "INTERPRETER_USE_SWITCH" at the top of the file,
> >> >> thus using the switch-case fallback implementation, the
> >> >> warning vanishes.
> >> >>
> >> >> We use an explicit jump table rather than a switch case whenever
> >> >> possible for performance reasons.
> >> >>
> >> >> I notice that tools/objtool/builtin-check.c needs to be aware of
> >> >> switch-cases transformed into jump tables by the compiler. Are
> >> >> explicit jump tables supported by the stack validator ? Do we
> >> >> need to add annotation to our code ?
> >> >
> >> > Hi Mathieu,
> >> >
> >> > Unfortunately objtool doesn't know how to validate this type of jump
> >> > table. So to avoid the warning you'll need to add an annotation to tell
> >> > objtool to ignore it:
> >> >
> >> > STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD(lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode);
> >> >
> >> > We had to annotate __bpf_prog_run() in the kernel for the same reason.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the tip! Unfortunately it does not seem to work.
> >>
> >> objdump -t lttng/lttng-filter-interpreter.o output gives:
> >>
> >> 0000000000000000 l d __func_stack_frame_non_standard 0000000000000000
> >> __func_stack_frame_non_standard
> >> 0000000000000000 l O __func_stack_frame_non_standard 0000000000000008
> >> __func_stack_frame_non_standard_lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode
> >>
> >> Running objtool check (built in O0) in gdb on lttng-filter-interpreter.o
> >> built with the STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD define, it appears that the
> >> following function:
> >>
> >> static bool ignore_func(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func)
> >> {
> >> struct rela *rela;
> >> struct instruction *insn;
> >>
> >> /* check for STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD */
> >> if (file->whitelist && file->whitelist->rela)
> >> list_for_each_entry(rela, &file->whitelist->rela->rela_list, list)
> >> if (rela->sym->sec == func->sec &&
> >> rela->addend == func->offset)
> >> return true;
> >>
> >> /* check if it has a context switching instruction */
> >> func_for_each_insn(file, func, insn)
> >> if (insn->type == INSN_CONTEXT_SWITCH)
> >> return true;
> >>
> >> return false;
> >> }
> >>
> >> For lttng_filter_interpret_bytecode, while in the first list
> >> iteration:
> >>
> >> (gdb) print rela->sym->sec
> >> $18 = (struct section *) 0x7ffff7e20010
> >> (gdb) print func->sec
> >> $19 = (struct section *) 0x7ffff7e20010
> >>
> >> But
> >>
> >> (gdb) print rela->addend
> >> $20 = 0
> >> (gdb) print func->offset
> >> $21 = 928
> >>
> >> So for some reason it never match the ignore_func.
> >> This happens both when I build lttng-modules as a kernel module,
> >> and when I build it into the kernel image.
> >>
> >> Any idea why ?
> >
> > Hm, no idea. Can you send me the object file?
>
> Sure. See attached. Built from lttng-modules master branch
> commit 63155590 against a 4.6 kernel tree, with lttng-modules
> "built-in.sh" script executed targeting the kernel tree. Kernel
> config attached too.
Thanks, figured it out. It was an objtool bug. It was expecting the
macro to create a section symbol (STT_SECTION), but for some reason this
file's use of the macro creates a function symbol (STT_FUNC). I'll
submit a fix upstream. Here's the patch, FYI:
diff --git a/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c b/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c
index e8a1e69..25d8031 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/builtin-check.c
@@ -122,10 +122,14 @@ static bool ignore_func(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func)
/* check for STACK_FRAME_NON_STANDARD */
if (file->whitelist && file->whitelist->rela)
- list_for_each_entry(rela, &file->whitelist->rela->rela_list, list)
- if (rela->sym->sec == func->sec &&
+ list_for_each_entry(rela, &file->whitelist->rela->rela_list, list) {
+ if (rela->sym->type == STT_SECTION &&
+ rela->sym->sec == func->sec &&
rela->addend == func->offset)
return true;
+ if (rela->sym->type == STT_FUNC && rela->sym == func)
+ return true;
+ }
/* check if it has a context switching instruction */
func_for_each_insn(file, func, insn)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists