linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/923] 5.15.3-rc3 review

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: <20211119020427.2y5esq2czquwmvwc@treble>
Date:   Thu, 18 Nov 2021 18:04:27 -0800
From:   Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Holger Hoffstätte 
        <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
        Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.15 000/923] 5.15.3-rc3 review

On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 01:11:09PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:18:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:06:27AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 03:50:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I really don't think the WCHAN code should use unwinders at all. It's
> > > > > too damn fragile, and it's too easily triggered from user space.
> > > > 
> > > > On x86, esp. with ORC, it pretty much has to. The thing is, the ORC
> > > > unwinder has been very stable so far. I'm guessing there's some really
> > > > stupid thing going on, like for example trying to unwind a freed stack.
> > > > 
> > > > I *just* managed to reproduce, so let me go have a poke.
> > > 
> > > Confirmed, with the below it no longer reproduces. Now, let me go undo
> > > that and fix the unwinder to not explode while trying to unwind nothing.
> > 
> > OK, so the bug is firmly with 5d1ceb3969b6 ("x86: Fix __get_wchan() for
> > !STACKTRACE") which lost the try_get_task_stack() that stack_trace_*()
> > does.
> > 
> > We can ofc trivially re-instate that, but I'm now running with the
> > below which I suppose is a better fix, hmm?
> > 
> > (obv I still need to look a the other two unwinders)
> 
> I now have the below, the only thing missing is that there's a
> user_mode() call on a stack based regs. Now on x86_64 we can
> __get_kernel_nofault() regs->cs and call it a day, but on i386 we have
> to also fetch regs->flags.
> 
> Is this really the way to go?

Please no.  Can we just add a check in unwind_start() to ensure the
caller did try_get_task_stack()?

-- 
Josh