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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20160812204129.zmzurnfnqdoirbxz@treble>
Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:41:29 -0500
From:	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, 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>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	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 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);
> +
> +	if (!unwind_next_frame(&state))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	frame = unwind_get_stack_ptr(&state);
>  
> -	oldframe = __builtin_frame_address(2);
> -	if (oldframe)
> -		frame = __builtin_frame_address(3);
>  	/*
>  	 * low ----------------------------------------------> high
>  	 * [saved bp][saved ip][args][local vars][saved bp][saved ip]
> @@ -71,8 +80,12 @@ int arch_within_stack_frames(const void * const stack,
>  		 */
>  		if (obj + len <= frame)
>  			return obj >= oldframe + 2 * sizeof(void *) ? 1 : -1;
> +
> +		if (!unwind_next_frame(&state))
> +			return 0;

I think there's another issue here.  This return needs to be tweaked.
IIUC, if it reliably reaches the end of the stack without finding the
object, it should return -1, but if there's something wrong with the
frame pointers which prevents the unwinder from reaching the end of the
stack, it should return 0.

-- 
Josh