linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 1/2] objtool: Handle another GCC stack pointer adjustment bug

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]

Date:   Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:24:32 -0500
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     x86@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Miguel Bernal Marin <miguel.bernal.marin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] objtool: Handle another GCC stack pointer adjustment bug

The kbuild bot reported the following warning with GCC 4.4 and a
randconfig:

  net/socket.o: warning: objtool: compat_sock_ioctl()+0x1083: stack state mismatch: cfa1=7+160 cfa2=-1+0

This is caused by another GCC non-optimization, where it backs up and
restores the stack pointer for no apparent reason:

    2f91:       48 89 e0                mov    %rsp,%rax
    2f94:       4c 89 e7                mov    %r12,%rdi
    2f97:       4c 89 f6                mov    %r14,%rsi
    2f9a:       ba 20 00 00 00          mov    $0x20,%edx
    2f9f:       48 89 c4                mov    %rax,%rsp

This issue would have been happily ignored before the following commit:

  dd88a0a0c861 ("objtool: Handle GCC stack pointer adjustment bug")

But now that objtool is paying attention to such stack pointer writes
to/from a register, it needs to understand them properly.  In this case
that means recognizing that the "mov %rsp, %rax" instruction is
potentially a backup of the stack pointer.

Reported-by: kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Fixes: dd88a0a0c861 ("objtool: Handle GCC stack pointer adjustment bug")
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
---
 tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c |  6 +++---
 tools/objtool/check.c           | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c b/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
index 0e8c8ec4fd4e..0f22768c0d4d 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
@@ -208,14 +208,14 @@ int arch_decode_instruction(struct elf *elf, struct section *sec,
 		break;
 
 	case 0x89:
-		if (rex == 0x48 && modrm == 0xe5) {
+		if (rex_w && !rex_r && modrm_mod == 3 && modrm_reg == 4) {
 
-			/* mov %rsp, %rbp */
+			/* mov %rsp, reg */
 			*type = INSN_STACK;
 			op->src.type = OP_SRC_REG;
 			op->src.reg = CFI_SP;
 			op->dest.type = OP_DEST_REG;
-			op->dest.reg = CFI_BP;
+			op->dest.reg = op_to_cfi_reg[modrm_rm][rex_b];
 			break;
 		}
 
diff --git a/tools/objtool/check.c b/tools/objtool/check.c
index f744617c9946..a0c518ecf085 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/check.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/check.c
@@ -1203,24 +1203,39 @@ static int update_insn_state(struct instruction *insn, struct insn_state *state)
 		switch (op->src.type) {
 
 		case OP_SRC_REG:
-			if (op->src.reg == CFI_SP && op->dest.reg == CFI_BP) {
+			if (op->src.reg == CFI_SP && op->dest.reg == CFI_BP &&
+			    cfa->base == CFI_SP &&
+			    regs[CFI_BP].base == CFI_CFA &&
+			    regs[CFI_BP].offset == -cfa->offset) {
+
+				/* mov %rsp, %rbp */
+				cfa->base = op->dest.reg;
+				state->bp_scratch = false;
+			}
 
-				if (cfa->base == CFI_SP &&
-				    regs[CFI_BP].base == CFI_CFA &&
-				    regs[CFI_BP].offset == -cfa->offset) {
+			else if (op->src.reg == CFI_SP &&
+				 op->dest.reg == CFI_BP && state->drap) {
 
-					/* mov %rsp, %rbp */
-					cfa->base = op->dest.reg;
-					state->bp_scratch = false;
-				}
+				/* drap: mov %rsp, %rbp */
+				regs[CFI_BP].base = CFI_BP;
+				regs[CFI_BP].offset = -state->stack_size;
+				state->bp_scratch = false;
+			}
 
-				else if (state->drap) {
+			else if (op->src.reg == CFI_SP && cfa->base == CFI_SP) {
 
-					/* drap: mov %rsp, %rbp */
-					regs[CFI_BP].base = CFI_BP;
-					regs[CFI_BP].offset = -state->stack_size;
-					state->bp_scratch = false;
-				}
+				/*
+				 * mov %rsp, %reg
+				 *
+				 * This is needed for the rare case where GCC
+				 * does:
+				 *
+				 *   mov    %rsp, %rax
+				 *   ...
+				 *   mov    %rax, %rsp
+				 */
+				state->vals[op->dest.reg].base = CFI_CFA;
+				state->vals[op->dest.reg].offset = -state->stack_size;
 			}
 
 			else if (op->dest.reg == cfa->base) {
-- 
2.13.5