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: <8591e34a-c181-f3ff-e691-a6350225e5b4@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 15:26:13 -0500
From:   "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     mark.rutland@....com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, jthierry@...hat.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] arm64: Implement stack trace termination
 record



On 3/18/21 10:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:57:53AM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> 
>> In summary, task pt_regs->stackframe is where a successful stack trace ends.
> 
>>         .if \el == 0
>> -       mov     x29, xzr
>> +       stp     xzr, xzr, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
>>         .else
>>         stp     x29, x22, [sp, #S_STACKFRAME]
>> -       add     x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
>>         .endif
>> +       add     x29, sp, #S_STACKFRAME
> 
> For both user and kernel threads this patch (at least by itself) results
> in an additional record being reported in stack traces with a NULL
> function pointer since it keeps the existing record where it is and adds
> this new fixed record below it.  This is addressed for the kernel later
> in the series, by "arm64: Terminate the stack trace at TASK_FRAME and
> EL0_FRAME", but will still be visible to other unwinders such as
> debuggers.  I'm not sure that this *matters* but it might and should at
> least be called out more explicitly.
> 
> If we are going to add the extra record there would probably be less
> potential for confusion if we pointed it at some sensibly named dummy
> function so anything or anyone that does see it on the stack doesn't get
> confused by a NULL.
> 

I agree. I will think about this some more. If no other solution presents
itself, I will add the dummy function.

Madhavan

> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ