linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 22/43] x86/ftrace: Adapt ftrace nop patching for PIE support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:44:54 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     "Hou Wenlong" <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Thomas Garnier" <thgarnie@...omium.org>,
        "Lai Jiangshan" <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>,
        "Kees Cook" <keescook@...omium.org>,
        "Masami Hiramatsu" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        "Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Huacai Chen" <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        "Qing Zhang" <zhangqing@...ngson.cn>,
        <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 22/43] x86/ftrace: Adapt ftrace nop patching for PIE
 support

On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 17:51:02 +0800
"Hou Wenlong" <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com> wrote:

> From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org>
> 
> From: Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...omium.org>
> 
> When using PIE with function tracing, the compiler generates a
> call through the GOT (call *__fentry__@...PCREL). This instruction
> takes 6-bytes instead of 5-bytes with a relative call. And -mnop-mcount
> option is not implemented for -fPIE now.
> 
> If PIE is enabled, replace the 6th byte of the GOT call by a 1-byte nop
> so ftrace can handle the previous 5-bytes as before.

Wait! This won't work!

You can't just append another nop to fill in the blanks here. We must
either have a single 6 byte nop, or we need to refactor the entire logic to
something that other archs have.

The two nops means that the CPU can take it as two separate commands.
There's nothing stopping the computer from preempting a task between the
two. If that happens, and you modify the 1byte nop and 5byte nop with a
single 6 byte command, when the task get's rescheduled, it will execute the
last 5 bytes of that 6 byte command and take a general protection fault, and
likely crash the machine.

NACK on this. It needs a better solution.

-- Steve


> 
> [Hou Wenlong: Adapt code change and fix wrong offset calculation in
> make_nop_x86()]
>