linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] m68k: leave stack mangling to asm wrapper of sigreturn()

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:   Thu, 16 Sep 2021 12:53:53 +1200
From:   Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] m68k: leave stack mangling to asm wrapper of
 sigreturn()

Hi Al,

On 16/09/21 12:19, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:35:05AM +1200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
>> This one's a little harder - you use a 84 byte gap on each sigreturn, no
>> matter what the frame size we need to restore. The original
>> mangle_kernel_stack() only makes room on the stack when it has no other
>> option (using twice as much size - correct me if I'm wrong).
>>
>> Ideally, we'd only leave a gap for mangle_kernel_stack() to use if the frame
>> size requires us to do so. Working that out in asm glue would be
>> sufficiently convoluted as to cancel out the benefits of cleaning up the C
>> sigreturn part. Probably not worth it.
>
> You'd need to
> 	* load the frame type from sigcontext (and deal with EFAULT, etc.)
> 	* make decision based on that
> 	* pass the type down into sigreturn(), so we wouldn't run into
> mismatches.
>
> And all that just to avoid a single "subtract a constant from stack pointer"
> insn.  We are on a very shallow kernel stack here - it's a syscall entry,
> after all.  And the stack footprint of do_sigreturn() is fairly small - e.g.
> stat(2) eats a lot more.

Thanks, that's what I was wondering. Not worth the extra complexity then.

>
> We are not initializing the gap either - it's just reserved on stack; we only
> access it if we need to enlarge the stack frame.
>
> IOW, what would be the benefit of trying to avoid unconditional gap there?

Avoiding a kernel stack overflow - there are comments in the code that 
warn against that, but those may be largely historic...

Cheers,

	Michael