linux-kernel - [PATCH V2] objtool/x86: objtool can confuse memory and stack access

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20240329153416.899057-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:34:16 +0100
From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jpoimboe@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Cc: alexandre.chartre@...cle.com
Subject: [PATCH V2] objtool/x86: objtool can confuse memory and stack access

The encoding of an x86 instruction can include a ModR/M and a SIB
(Scale-Index-Base) byte to describe the addressing mode of the
instruction.

objtool processes all addressing mode with a SIB base of 5 as having
%rbp as the base register. However, a SIB base of 5 means that the
effective address has either no base (if ModR/M mod is zero) or %rbp
as the base (if ModR/M mod is 1 or 2). This can cause objtool to confuse
an absolute address access with a stack operation.

For example, objtool will see the following instruction:

 4c 8b 24 25 e0 ff ff    mov    0xffffffffffffffe0,%r12

as a stack operation (i.e. similar to: mov -0x20(%rbp), %r12).

[Note that this kind of weird absolute address access is added by the
 compiler when using KASAN.]

If this perceived stack operation happens to reference the location
where %r12 was pushed on the stack then the objtool validation will
think that %r12 is being restored and this can cause a stack state
mismatch.

This kind behavior was seen on xfs code, after a minor change (convert
kmem_alloc() to kmalloc()):

>> fs/xfs/xfs.o: warning: objtool: xfs_da_grow_inode_int+0x6c1: stack state mismatch: reg1[12]=-2-48 reg2[12]=-1+0

Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402220435.MGN0EV6l-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
---
 tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c b/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
index 3a1d80a7878d3..5872818b8930c 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
@@ -125,8 +125,14 @@ bool arch_pc_relative_reloc(struct reloc *reloc)
 #define is_RIP()   ((modrm_rm & 7) == CFI_BP && modrm_mod == 0)
 #define have_SIB() ((modrm_rm & 7) == CFI_SP && mod_is_mem())

+/*
+ * Check the ModRM register. If there is a SIB byte then check with
+ * the SIB base register. But if the SIB base is 5 (i.e. CFI_BP) and
+ * ModRM mod is 0 then there is no base register.
+ */
 #define rm_is(reg) (have_SIB() ? \
-		    sib_base == (reg) && sib_index == CFI_SP : \
+		    sib_base == (reg) && sib_index == CFI_SP && \
+		    (sib_base != CFI_BP || modrm_mod != 0):	\
 		    modrm_rm == (reg))

 #define rm_is_mem(reg)	(mod_is_mem() && !is_RIP() && rm_is(reg))
-- 
2.39.3