linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] x86: assembly, FUNC_START for fn, DATA

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: <20170323073819.GA14258@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:38:20 +0100
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] x86: assembly, FUNC_START for fn, DATA_START
 for data


* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:46:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 03/22/2017, 08:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > * Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> Hi!
> > > >>
> > > >>> -ENTRY(saved_rbp)	.quad	0
> > > >>> -ENTRY(saved_rsi)	.quad	0
> > > >>> -ENTRY(saved_rdi)	.quad	0
> > > >>> -ENTRY(saved_rbx)	.quad	0
> > > >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rbp)		.quad	0
> > > >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rsi)		.quad	0
> > > >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rdi)		.quad	0
> > > >>> +SYM_DATA_START(saved_rbx)		.quad	0
> > > >>
> > > >> Does it make sense to call it SYM_DATA_*START* when there's no
> > > >> corresponding end?
> > > > 
> > > > That looks like a bug - I think we should strive for them to always be in pairs.
> > > > 
> > > > Jiri, Josh, could objtool help here perhaps, to detect 'non-terminated' 
> > > > SYM_*_START() uses? This could be done by emitting debug data into a special 
> > > > section and then analyzing that section for unpaired entries. The section can be 
> > > > discarded in the final link, it won't show up in the kernel image.
> > > 
> > > It should be easier than that. No introduction of other info needed --
> > > every global symbol without a ".type" or ".size" (i.e. SYM_*_END) should
> > > be a bug now.
> > 
> > I'm all for that!
> 
> It would be easy to add this checking to objtool since it already reads
> the symbol table.  The hard part is figuring out the logistics. :-)
> 
> - Should the warnings be on by default?

Yes, if objtool is running. Keep it simple.

> - Part of the "objtool check" command or something else?

Yes - I think it's still within the 'object file check' functionality.

> - Separate config option or just include it with
>   CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION?

Yeah, but I'd rename CONFIG_STACK_VALIDATION to CONFIG_OBJ_VALIDATION or such. As 
I predicted early on, objtool will go beyond stack checking! ;-)

> - Should all asm files be checked, including those currently skipped by
>   objtool with OBJECT_FILES_NON_STANDARD?

The symbol syntax check should definitely be for all files, yes.

Could we perhaps emit 'non-standard stack frames' information into the .o itself 
(via a flag or a special section?), so that objtool can decide on its own whether 
to complain about any weirdnesses there?

> > Can we detect double ends as well - i.e. do a build check of the full syntax of 
> > these symbol definition primitives?
> 
> Detecting double ends would be a little trickier.  The second SYM_*_END
> supersedes the first, so that information isn't in the ELF symbol table.

Indeed.

> We could use a special section to annotate all the macro uses and have
> objtool do the checking, similar to what you suggested earlier.

That might be useful for other purposes as well - such as the non-standard stack 
frame annotations?

But it's your call really: I'm principally fine with any of the solutions, as long 
as the checking is done.

Thanks,

	Ingo