linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 5/8] arm64: Detect an FTRACE frame and mark a stack trace unreliable

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bfc4dbbd-f69b-1a41-c16a-0c5cd0080f90@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 11:53:04 -0500
From:   "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     broonie@...nel.org, 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 5/8] arm64: Detect an FTRACE frame and mark a stack
 trace unreliable



On 3/23/21 11:48 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 10:26:50AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 3/23/21 9:57 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> Thanks for explaining the nesting. It is now clear to me.
> 
> No problem!
> 
>> So, my next question is - can we define a practical limit for the
>> nesting so that any nesting beyond that is fatal? The reason I ask is
>> - if there is a max, then we can allocate an array of stack frames out
>> of band for the special frames so they are not part of the stack and
>> will not likely get corrupted.
> 
> I suspect we can't define such a fatal limit without introducing a local
> DoS vector on some otherwise legitimate workload, and I fear this will
> further complicate the entry/exit logic, so I'd prefer to avoid
> introducing a new limit.
> 

I suspected as much. But I thought I will ask anyway.

> What exactly do you mean by a "special frame", and why do those need
> additional protection over regular frame records?
> 

Special frame just means pt_regs->stackframe that is used for exceptions.
No additional protection is needed. I just meant that since they are
out of band, we can reliably tell that there are exceptions without
examining the stack. That is all.

>> Also, we don't have to do any special detection. If the number of out
>> of band frames used is one or more then we have exceptions and the
>> stack trace is unreliable.
> 
> What is expected to protect against?
> 

It is not a protection thing. I just wanted a reliable way to tell that there
is an exception without having to unwind the stack up to the exception frame.
That is all.

Thanks.

Madhavan