[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1504382986-49301-2-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2017 13:09:45 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Use unique .text section for refcount exceptions
Using .text.unlikely for refcount exceptions isn't safe because gcc may
move entire functions into .text.unlikely (e.g. in6_dev_dev()), which
would cause any uses of a protected refcount_t function to stay inline
with the function, triggering the protection unconditionally:
.section .text.unlikely,"ax",@progbits
.type in6_dev_get, @function
in6_dev_getx:
.LFB4673:
.loc 2 4128 0
.cfi_startproc
...
lock; incl 480(%rbx)
js 111f
.pushsection .text.unlikely
111: lea 480(%rbx), %rcx
112: .byte 0x0f, 0xff
.popsection
113:
This creates a unique .text..refcount section and adds an additional
test to the exception handler to WARN in the case of having none of OF,
SF, nor ZF set so we can see things like this more easily in the future.
The double dot for the section name keeps it out of the TEXT_MAIN macro
namespace (see commit cb87481ee89db ("kbuild: linker script do not match C
names unless LD_DEAD_CODE_DATA_ELIMINATION is configured"), which matches
C names: [a-zA-Z0-9_] but not ".") to avoid collisions and so it can be
put at the end with text.unlikely to keep the cold code together.
Reported-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Fixes: 7a46ec0e2f48 ("locking/refcounts, x86/asm: Implement fast refcount overflow protection")
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
---
This will apply to -tip with fuzz, but since the TEXT_MAIN delta is in -next
and is targeted for stable, it seemed best to diff against -next.
---
arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h | 2 +-
arch/x86/mm/extable.c | 7 ++++++-
include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
index ff871210b9f2..4e44250e7d0d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/refcount.h
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
* back to the regular execution flow in .text.
*/
#define _REFCOUNT_EXCEPTION \
- ".pushsection .text.unlikely\n" \
+ ".pushsection .text..refcount\n" \
"111:\tlea %[counter], %%" _ASM_CX "\n" \
"112:\t" ASM_UD0 "\n" \
ASM_UNREACHABLE \
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/extable.c b/arch/x86/mm/extable.c
index c076f710de4c..cf0d74b47ae0 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/extable.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/extable.c
@@ -66,12 +66,17 @@ bool ex_handler_refcount(const struct exception_table_entry *fixup,
* wrapped around) will be set. Additionally, seeing the refcount
* reach 0 will set ZF (Zero Flag: result was zero). In each of
* these cases we want a report, since it's a boundary condition.
- *
+ * The SF case is not reported since it indicates post-boundary
+ * manipulations below zero or above INT_MAX. And if none of the
+ * flags are set, something has gone very wrong, so report it.
*/
if (regs->flags & (X86_EFLAGS_OF | X86_EFLAGS_ZF)) {
bool zero = regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_ZF;
refcount_error_report(regs, zero ? "hit zero" : "overflow");
+ } else if ((regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_SF) == 0) {
+ /* Report if none of OF, ZF, nor SF are set. */
+ refcount_error_report(regs, "unexpected saturation");
}
return true;
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
index 8acfc1e099e1..e549bff87c5b 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/vmlinux.lds.h
@@ -459,6 +459,7 @@
#define TEXT_TEXT \
ALIGN_FUNCTION(); \
*(.text.hot TEXT_MAIN .text.fixup .text.unlikely) \
+ *(.text..refcount) \
*(.ref.text) \
MEM_KEEP(init.text) \
MEM_KEEP(exit.text) \
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists