linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v8 3/4] 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]

Message-ID: <77c43173-95c9-6ce5-ad11-219d38a66e34@linux.microsoft.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 18:31:26 -0500
From:   "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     mark.rutland@....com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org,
        nobuta.keiya@...itsu.com, sjitindarsingh@...il.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
        pasha.tatashin@...een.com, jthierry@...hat.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 3/4] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability
 checks in the unwinder



On 8/26/21 10:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 02:06:02PM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> 
>> +	if (frame->need_reliable && !unwind_is_reliable(frame)) {
>> +		/* Cannot unwind to the next frame reliably. */
>> +		frame->failed = true;
>> +		return false;
>> +	}
> 
> This means we only collect reliability information in the case
> where we're specifically doing a reliable stacktrace.  For
> example when printing stack traces on the console it might be
> useful to print a ? or something if the frame is unreliable as a
> hint to the reader that the information might be misleading.
> Could we therefore change the flag here to a reliability one and
> our need_reliable check so that we always run
> unwind_is_reliable()?
> 
> I'm not sure if we need to abandon the trace on first error when
> doing a reliable trace but I can see it's a bit safer so perhaps
> better to do so.  If we don't abandon then we don't require the
> need_reliable check at all.
> 

I think that the caller should be able to specify that the stack trace
should be abandoned. Like Livepatch.

So, we could always do the reliability check. But keep need_reliable.

Thanks.

Madhavan