[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <172043936454.2215.16620277258416300859.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 11:49:24 -0000
From: "tip-bot2 for Alexandre Chartre" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:
[tip: objtool/core] objtool/x86: objtool can confuse memory and stack access
The following commit has been merged into the objtool/core branch of tip:
Commit-ID: 8e366d83edce3065ff3372bedc281c5e217c0550
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/8e366d83edce3065ff3372bedc281c5e217c0550
Author: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>
AuthorDate: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:47:47 +02:00
Committer: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
CommitterDate: Tue, 02 Jul 2024 23:40:54 -07:00
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>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240620144747.2524805-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com
Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
---
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 3a1d80a..ed6bff0 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))
Powered by blists - more mailing lists