linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] arm64: kprobes: Record frame pointer with kretprobe instance

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: <20211014225039.b96ff7b7fa86f340ceb50192@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:50:39 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "Naveen N . Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] arm64: kprobes: Record frame pointer with kretprobe
 instance

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:27:02 +0100
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 07:01:55PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 10:13:32 +0100
> > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 05:04:05PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 11:01:39 +0100
> > > > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 09:28:39PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > > > > > Record the frame pointer instead of stack address with kretprobe
> > > > > > instance as the identifier on the instance list.
> > > > > > Since arm64 always enable CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER, we can use the
> > > > > > actual frame pointer (x29).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Just to check, why do we need to use the FP rather than SP? It wasn't
> > > > > clear to me if that's necessary later in the series, or if I'm missing
> > > > > something here.
> > > > 
> > > > Actually, this is for finding correct return address from the per-task
> > > > kretprobe instruction list (suppose it as a shadow stack) when it will
> > > > be searched in stack-backtracing. At that point, the framepointer will
> > > > be a reliable key.
> > > 
> > > Sure, my question was more "why isn't the SP a reliable key?", because both
> > > the SP and FP should be balanced at function-entry and function-return
> > > time. I'm asking because I think I'm missing a subtlety.
> > 
> > Ah, because SP is not used while unwinding frame. For the kretprobe,
> > either FP or SP is OK. But for the stacktrace.c, I can not use SP
> > and is easy to change to use FP. :)
> 
> Ah, so this is just so that stacktrace can match the address. For
> clarity, would you be happy to add a sentence to the commit message like:
> 
> | This will allow the stacktrace code to find the original return
> | address from the FP alone.

Yes, I'm happy to update the changelog :)

Thanks!

> 
> Thanks,
> Mark.


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>