linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] kallsyms: strip LTO suffixes from static functions

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: <a970613b-014f-be76-e342-4a51e792b56d@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 28 Jun 2021 12:45:59 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>, "KE . LI" <like1@...o.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kallsyms: strip LTO suffixes from static functions

On 6/28/2021 12:05 PM, 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built Linux wrote:
> Similar to:
> commit 8b8e6b5d3b01 ("kallsyms: strip ThinLTO hashes from static
> functions")
> 
> It's very common for compilers to modify the symbol name for static
> functions as part of optimizing transformations. That makes hooking
> static functions (that weren't inlined or DCE'd) with kprobes difficult.
> 
> LLVM has yet another name mangling scheme used by thin LTO.  Strip off
> these suffixes so that we can continue to hook such static functions.
> 
> Reported-by: KE.LI(Lieke) <like1@...o.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
> ---
> Changes v1 -> v2:
> * Both mangling schemes can occur for thinLTO + CFI, this new scheme can
>    also occur for thinLTO without CFI. Split cleanup_symbol_name() into
>    two function calls.
> * Drop KE.LI's tested by tag.
> * Do not carry Fangrui's Reviewed by tag.
> * Drop the inline keyword; it is meaningless.
> 
>   kernel/kallsyms.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>   1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/kallsyms.c b/kernel/kallsyms.c
> index 4067564ec59f..fbce4a1ec700 100644
> --- a/kernel/kallsyms.c
> +++ b/kernel/kallsyms.c
> @@ -171,14 +171,30 @@ static unsigned long kallsyms_sym_address(int idx)
>   	return kallsyms_relative_base - 1 - kallsyms_offsets[idx];
>   }
>   
> -#if defined(CONFIG_CFI_CLANG) && defined(CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN)
> +#ifdef CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN
> +/*
> + * LLVM appends a suffix for local variables that must be promoted to global
> + * scope as part of thin LTO. foo() becomes foo.llvm.974640843467629774. This
> + * can break hooking of static functions with kprobes.
> + */
> +static bool cleanup_symbol_name_thinlto(char *s)
> +{
> +	char *res;
> +
> +	res = strstr(s, ".llvm.");
> +	if (res)
> +		*res = '\0';
> +
> +	return res != NULL;
> +}
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CFI_CLANG
>   /*
>    * LLVM appends a hash to static function names when ThinLTO and CFI are
>    * both enabled, i.e. foo() becomes foo$707af9a22804d33c81801f27dcfe489b.
>    * This causes confusion and potentially breaks user space tools, so we
>    * strip the suffix from expanded symbol names.
>    */
> -static inline bool cleanup_symbol_name(char *s)
> +static bool cleanup_symbol_name_thinlto_cfi(char *s)
>   {
>   	char *res;
>   
> @@ -189,8 +205,17 @@ static inline bool cleanup_symbol_name(char *s)
>   	return res != NULL;
>   }
>   #else
> -static inline bool cleanup_symbol_name(char *s) { return false; }
> -#endif
> +static bool cleanup_symbol_name_thinlto_cfi(char *s) { return false; }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_CFI_CLANG */
> +#else
> +static bool cleanup_symbol_name_thinlto(char *s) { return false; }
> +#endif /* CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN */
> +
> +static bool cleanup_symbol_name(char *s)
> +{
> +	return cleanup_symbol_name_thinlto(s) &&
> +		cleanup_symbol_name_thinlto_cfi(s);

Won't this be a build error when CONFIG_LTO_CLANG_THIN=n and 
CONFIG_CFI_CLANG=n because cleanup_symbol_name_thinlto_cfi() will not be 
defined? Should the cleanup_symbol_name_thinlto_cfi() stub be in the 
last else block?

Cheers,
Nathan

> +}
>   
>   /* Lookup the address for this symbol. Returns 0 if not found. */
>   unsigned long kallsyms_lookup_name(const char *name)
>