[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220425115603.781311-5-mark.rutland@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:55:59 +0100
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alex.popov@...ux.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, keescook@...omium.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, luto@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, will@...nel.org
Subject: [PATCH 4/8] stackleak: clarify variable names
The logic within __stackleak_erase() can be a little hard to follow, as
`boundary` switches from being the low bound to the high bound mid way
through the function, and `kstack_ptr` is used to represent the start of
the region to erase while `boundary` represents the end of the region to
erase.
Make this a little clearer by consistently using clearer variable names.
The `boundary` variable is removed, the bounds of the region to erase
are described by `erase_low` and `erase_high`, and bounds of the task
stack are described by `task_stack_low` and `task_stck_high`.
As the same time, remove the comment above the variables, since it is
unclear whether it's intended as rationale, a complaint, or a TODO, and
is more confusing than helpful.
There should be no functional change as a result of this patch.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
---
kernel/stackleak.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/stackleak.c b/kernel/stackleak.c
index 0472956d9a2ce..8fbc1e4c21435 100644
--- a/kernel/stackleak.c
+++ b/kernel/stackleak.c
@@ -73,44 +73,42 @@ late_initcall(stackleak_sysctls_init);
static __always_inline void __stackleak_erase(void)
{
const unsigned long task_stack_low = stackleak_task_low_bound(current);
-
- /* It would be nice not to have 'kstack_ptr' and 'boundary' on stack */
- unsigned long kstack_ptr = current->lowest_stack;
- unsigned long boundary = task_stack_low;
+ unsigned long erase_low = current->lowest_stack;
+ unsigned long erase_high;
unsigned int poison_count = 0;
const unsigned int depth = STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH / sizeof(unsigned long);
/* Check that 'lowest_stack' value is sane */
- if (unlikely(kstack_ptr - boundary >= THREAD_SIZE))
- kstack_ptr = boundary;
+ if (unlikely(erase_low - task_stack_low >= THREAD_SIZE))
+ erase_low = task_stack_low;
/* Search for the poison value in the kernel stack */
- while (kstack_ptr > boundary && poison_count <= depth) {
- if (*(unsigned long *)kstack_ptr == STACKLEAK_POISON)
+ while (erase_low > task_stack_low && poison_count <= depth) {
+ if (*(unsigned long *)erase_low == STACKLEAK_POISON)
poison_count++;
else
poison_count = 0;
- kstack_ptr -= sizeof(unsigned long);
+ erase_low -= sizeof(unsigned long);
}
#ifdef CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS
- current->prev_lowest_stack = kstack_ptr;
+ current->prev_lowest_stack = erase_low;
#endif
/*
- * Now write the poison value to the kernel stack. Start from
- * 'kstack_ptr' and move up till the new 'boundary'. We assume that
- * the stack pointer doesn't change when we write poison.
+ * Now write the poison value to the kernel stack between 'erase_low'
+ * and 'erase_high'. We assume that the stack pointer doesn't change
+ * when we write poison.
*/
if (on_thread_stack())
- boundary = current_stack_pointer;
+ erase_high = current_stack_pointer;
else
- boundary = current_top_of_stack();
+ erase_high = current_top_of_stack();
- while (kstack_ptr < boundary) {
- *(unsigned long *)kstack_ptr = STACKLEAK_POISON;
- kstack_ptr += sizeof(unsigned long);
+ while (erase_low < erase_high) {
+ *(unsigned long *)erase_low = STACKLEAK_POISON;
+ erase_low += sizeof(unsigned long);
}
/* Reset the 'lowest_stack' value for the next syscall */
--
2.30.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists