linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 1/6] vdso/extable: fix calculation of base

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: <2CDFE432-90D3-43EE-BA9F-2CFEB8BB343C@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Feb 2021 09:24:03 -0800
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/6] vdso/extable: fix calculation of base



> On Feb 25, 2021, at 1:16 PM, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>> 
>> Apparently, the assembly considers __ex_table as the location when the
>> pushsection directive was issued. Therefore when there is more than a
>> single entry in the vDSO exception table, the calculations of the base
>> and fixup are wrong.
>> 
>> Fix the calculations of the expected fault IP and new IP by adjusting
>> the base after each entry.
>> 
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: x86@...nel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/entry/vdso/extable.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/extable.c b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/extable.c
>> index afcf5b65beef..c81e78636220 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/vdso/extable.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/vdso/extable.c
>> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ bool fixup_vdso_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr,
>> 	nr_entries = image->extable_len / (sizeof(*extable));
>> 	extable = image->extable;
>> 
>> -	for (i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++) {
>> +	for (i = 0; i < nr_entries; i++, base += sizeof(*extable)) {
> 
> It's been literally years since I wrote this code, but I distinctly remember the
> addresses being relative to the base.  I also remember testing multiple entries,
> but again, that was a long time ago.
> 
> Assuming things have changed, or I was flat out wrong, the comment above the
> macro magic should also be updated.
> 
> /*
> * Inject exception fixup for vDSO code.  Unlike normal exception fixup,
> * vDSO uses a dedicated handler the addresses are relative to the overall
> * exception table, not each individual entry.
> */

I will update the comment. I am not very familiar with pushsection stuff,
but the offsets were wrong.

Since you say you checked it, I wonder whether it can somehow be caused
by having exception table entries defined from multiple object files.

Anyhow, this change follows the kernel’s (not vDSO) exception table
scheme.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)