linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] riscv: eliminate unreliable __builtin_frame

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: <87czkq7370.fsf@igel.home>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:10:59 +0100
From:   Andreas Schwab <schwab@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>
Cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: eliminate unreliable __builtin_frame_address(1)

On Jan 17 2022, Changbin Du wrote:

> I tried different pieces of code which uses __builtin_frame_address(1)
> (with both gcc version 7.5.0 and 10.3.0) to verify whether it works as
> expected on riscv64. The result is negative.
>
> What the compiler had generated is as below:
> 31                      fp = (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1);
>    0xffffffff80006024 <+200>:   ld      s1,0(s0)
>
> It takes '0(s0)' as the address of frame 1 (caller), but the actual address
> should be '-16(s0)'.
>
>           |       ...       | <-+
>           +-----------------+   |
>           | return address  |   |
>           | previous fp     |   |
>           | saved registers |   |
>           | local variables |   |
>   $fp --> |       ...       |   |
>           +-----------------+   |
>           | return address  |   |
>           | previous fp --------+
>           | saved registers |
>   $sp --> | local variables |
>           +-----------------+
>
> This leads the kernel can not dump the full stack trace on riscv.
>
> [    7.222126][    T1] Call Trace:
> [    7.222804][    T1] [<ffffffff80006058>] dump_backtrace+0x2c/0x3a
>
> This problem is not exposed on most riscv builds just because the '0(s0)'
> occasionally is the address frame 2 (caller's caller), if only ra and fp
> are stored in frame 1 (caller).
>
>           |       ...       | <-+
>           +-----------------+   |
>           | return address  |   |
>   $fp --> | previous fp     |   |
>           +-----------------+   |
>           | return address  |   |
>           | previous fp --------+
>           | saved registers |
>   $sp --> | local variables |
>           +-----------------+
>
> This could be a *bug* of gcc that should be fixed.

Yes, it would be nice to get this fixed.  The riscv target does not
override DYNAMIC_CHAIN_ADDRESS, thus the default is used, which has the
noted effect.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@...ux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510  2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."