linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 51/51] x86/mm: convert arch_within_stack

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]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+ejazCqzxL7d4RkW6+ZOLF6Zjp7eQ8mPySvipd3MOCqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:38:31 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
	Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 51/51] x86/mm: convert arch_within_stack_frames() to
 use the new unwinder

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:29:10AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
>>
>> Boot tested with CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c b/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
>> index 96ce151..9d0913c 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
>> @@ -50,12 +50,21 @@ int arch_within_stack_frames(const void * const stack,
>>                            const void * const stackend,
>>                            const void *obj, unsigned long len)
>>  {
>> -     const void *frame = NULL;
>> -     const void *oldframe;
>> +     struct unwind_state state;
>> +     const void *frame, *oldframe;
>> +
>> +     unwind_start(&state, current, NULL, NULL);
>> +
>> +     if (!unwind_next_frame(&state))
>> +             return 0;
>> +
>> +     oldframe = unwind_get_stack_ptr(&state);
>
> Actually, I think this isn't quite right.  Now that the function isn't
> inlined, this needs to unwind another frame to be equivalent to current
> behavior.

Yeah, that seems right. And IIUC, as long as this is wrapped in the
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER check, this won't use the guessing unwinder,
right? (Which is how it should be.)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Nexus Security