linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder

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:   Fri, 21 May 2021 14:41:56 -0500
From:   "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
        ardb@...nel.org, jthierry@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        will@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org, pasha.tatashin@...een.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability
 checks in the unwinder



On 5/21/21 2:16 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:11:45PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 01:59:16PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/21/21 1:48 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 06:53:18PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I say we may come up with some use for the flag in error cases in
>>>>>>> future so I'm not opposed to keeping the accounting there.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So, should I leave it the way it is now? Or should I not set reliable = false
>>>>>> for errors? Which one do you prefer?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you OK with not flagging reliable = false for errors in unwind_frame()?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's fine to leave it as it is.
>>>>
>>>> Either way works for me, but if you remove those 'reliable = false'
>>>> statements for stack corruption then, IIRC, the caller would still have
>>>> some confusion between the end of stack error (-ENOENT) and the other
>>>> errors (-EINVAL).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I will leave it the way it is. That is, I will do reliable = false on errors
>>> like you suggested.
>>>
>>>> So the caller would have to know that -ENOENT really means success.
>>>> Which, to me, seems kind of flaky.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, that is why -ENOENT was introduced - to indicate successful
>>> stack trace termination. A return value of 0 is for continuing with
>>> the stack trace. A non-zero value is for terminating the stack trace.
>>>
>>> So, either we return a positive value (say 1) to indicate successful
>>> termination. Or, we return -ENOENT to say no more stack frames left.
>>> I guess -ENOENT was chosen.
>>
>> I see.  So it's a tri-state return value, and frame->reliable is
>> intended to be a private interface not checked by the callers.
> 
> Or is frame->reliable supposed to be checked after all?  Looking at the
> code again, I'm not sure.
> 
> Either way it would be good to document the interface more clearly in a
> comment above the function.
> 

So, arch_stack_walk_reliable() would do this:

	start_backtrace(frame);

	while (...) {
		if (!frame->reliable)
			return error;

		consume_entry(...);

		ret = unwind_frame(...);

		if (ret)
			break;
	}

	if (ret == -ENOENT)
		return success;
	return error;


Something like that.

I will add a comment about all of this in the unwinder.

Thanks!

Madhavan