| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZfqiD8Yw0oOVHW/p@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 08:45:03 +0000
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To: Jiangfeng Xiao <xiaojiangfeng@...wei.com>
Cc: arnd@...db.de, keescook@...omium.org, haibo.li@...iatek.com,
angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com, amergnat@...libre.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
douzhaolei@...wei.com, gustavoars@...nel.org, jpoimboe@...nel.org,
kepler.chenxin@...wei.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
nixiaoming@...wei.com, peterz@...radead.org, wangbing6@...wei.com,
wangfangpeng1@...wei.com, jannh@...gle.com, willy@...radead.org,
David.Laight@...lab.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: unwind: improve unwinders for noreturn case
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:44:38AM +0800, Jiangfeng Xiao wrote:
> This is an off-by-one bug which is common in unwinders,
> due to the fact that the address on the stack points
> to the return address rather than the call address.
>
> So, for example, when the last instruction of a function
> is a function call (e.g., to a noreturn function), it can
> cause the unwinder to incorrectly try to unwind from
> the function after the callee.
>
> foo:
> ...
> bl bar
> ... end of function and thus next function ...
>
> which results in LR pointing into the next function.
>
> Fixed this by subtracting 1 from frmae->pc in the call frame
> (but not exception frames) like ORC on x86 does.
The reason that I'm not accepting this patch is because the above says
that it fixes it by subtracting 1 from the PC value, but the patch is
*way* more complicated than that and there's no explanation why.
For example, the following are unexplained:
- Why do we always need ex_frame
- What is the purpose of the change in format string for the display of
backtraces
>
> Refer to the unwind_next_frame function in the unwind_orc.c
>
> Suggested-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/lkml/20240305175846.qnyiru7uaa7itqba@treble/
> Signed-off-by: Jiangfeng Xiao <xiaojiangfeng@...wei.com>
> ---
> ChangeLog v1->v2
> - stay printk("%s...", loglvl, ...)
> ---
> arch/arm/include/asm/stacktrace.h | 4 ----
> arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 --
> arch/arm/kernel/traps.c | 4 ++--
> arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/stacktrace.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> index 360f0d2..07e4c16 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/stacktrace.h
> @@ -21,9 +21,7 @@ struct stackframe {
> struct llist_node *kr_cur;
> struct task_struct *tsk;
> #endif
> -#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
> bool ex_frame;
> -#endif
> };
>
> static __always_inline
> @@ -37,9 +35,7 @@ void arm_get_current_stackframe(struct pt_regs *regs, struct stackframe *frame)
> frame->kr_cur = NULL;
> frame->tsk = current;
> #endif
> -#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
> frame->ex_frame = in_entry_text(frame->pc);
> -#endif
> }
>
> extern int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame);
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 620aa82..1abd4f9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -154,9 +154,7 @@ static void start_stack_trace(struct stackframe *frame, struct task_struct *task
> frame->kr_cur = NULL;
> frame->tsk = task;
> #endif
> -#ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
> frame->ex_frame = in_entry_text(frame->pc);
> -#endif
> }
>
> void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie,
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
> index 3bad79d..46a5b1e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -84,10 +84,10 @@ void dump_backtrace_entry(unsigned long where, unsigned long from,
> printk("%sFunction entered at [<%08lx>] from [<%08lx>]\n",
> loglvl, where, from);
> #elif defined CONFIG_BACKTRACE_VERBOSE
> - printk("%s[<%08lx>] (%ps) from [<%08lx>] (%pS)\n",
> + printk("%s[<%08lx>] (%ps) from [<%08lx>] (%pB)\n",
> loglvl, where, (void *)where, from, (void *)from);
> #else
> - printk("%s %ps from %pS\n", loglvl, (void *)where, (void *)from);
> + printk("%s %ps from %pB\n", loglvl, (void *)where, (void *)from);
> #endif
>
> if (in_entry_text(from) && end <= ALIGN(frame, THREAD_SIZE))
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
> index 9d21921..f2baf92 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c
> @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@
> #include <linux/list.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
>
> +#include <asm/sections.h>
> #include <asm/stacktrace.h>
> #include <asm/traps.h>
> #include <asm/unwind.h>
> @@ -416,8 +417,14 @@ int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
>
> pr_debug("%s(pc = %08lx lr = %08lx sp = %08lx)\n", __func__,
> frame->pc, frame->lr, frame->sp);
> -
> - idx = unwind_find_idx(frame->pc);
> + /*
> + * For a call frame (as opposed to a exception frame), when the last
> + * instruction of a function is a function call (e.g., to a noreturn
> + * function), it can cause the unwinder incorrectly try to unwind
> + * from the function after the callee, fixed this by subtracting 1
> + * from frame->pc in the call frame like ORC on x86 does.
> + */
> + idx = unwind_find_idx(frame->ex_frame ? frame->pc : frame->pc - 1);
> if (!idx) {
> if (frame->pc && kernel_text_address(frame->pc)) {
> if (in_module_plt(frame->pc) && frame->pc != frame->lr) {
> @@ -427,6 +434,7 @@ int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
> * the state of the stack or the register file
> */
> frame->pc = frame->lr;
> + frame->ex_frame = in_entry_text(frame->pc);
> return URC_OK;
> }
> pr_warn("unwind: Index not found %08lx\n", frame->pc);
> @@ -454,6 +462,7 @@ int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
> if (frame->pc == frame->lr)
> return -URC_FAILURE;
> frame->pc = frame->lr;
> + frame->ex_frame = in_entry_text(frame->pc);
> return URC_OK;
> } else if ((idx->insn & 0x80000000) == 0)
> /* prel31 to the unwind table */
> @@ -515,6 +524,7 @@ int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
> frame->lr = ctrl.vrs[LR];
> frame->pc = ctrl.vrs[PC];
> frame->lr_addr = ctrl.lr_addr;
> + frame->ex_frame = in_entry_text(frame->pc);
>
> return URC_OK;
> }
> @@ -544,6 +554,7 @@ void unwind_backtrace(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *tsk,
> */
> here:
> frame.pc = (unsigned long)&&here;
> + frame.ex_frame = false;
> } else {
> /* task blocked in __switch_to */
> frame.fp = thread_saved_fp(tsk);
> @@ -554,11 +565,12 @@ void unwind_backtrace(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *tsk,
> */
> frame.lr = 0;
> frame.pc = thread_saved_pc(tsk);
> + frame.ex_frame = false;
> }
>
> while (1) {
> int urc;
> - unsigned long where = frame.pc;
> + unsigned long where = frame.ex_frame ? frame.pc : frame.pc - 1;
>
> urc = unwind_frame(&frame);
> if (urc < 0)
> --
> 1.8.5.6
>
>
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists