[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXH1xqYwhG16XxoBpoedTkBvt72xBjO259174jHirdf47A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 18:45:05 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, Keith Packard <keithp@...thp.com>,
Justin Stitt <justinstitt@...gle.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 14/28] x86/rethook: Use RIP-relative reference for
return address
On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 18:39, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Sept 2024 at 08:16, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb+git@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Instead of pushing an immediate absolute address, which is incompatible
> > with PIE codegen or linking, use a LEA instruction to take the address
> > into a register.
>
> I don't think you can do this - it corrupts %rdi.
>
> Yes, the code uses %rdi later, but that's inside the SAVE_REGS_STRING
> / RESTORE_REGS_STRING area.
>
Oops, I missed that.
> And we do have special calling conventions that aren't the regular
> ones, so %rdi might actually be used elsewhere. For example,
> __get_user_X and __put_user_X all have magical calling conventions:
> they don't actually use %rdi, but part of the calling convention is
> that the unused registers aren't modified.
>
> Of course, I'm not actually sure you can probe those and trigger this
> issue, but it all makes me think it's broken.
>
> And it's entirely possible that I'm wrong for some reason, but this
> just _looks_ very very wrong to me.
>
> I think you can do this with a "pushq mem" instead, and put the
> relocation into the memory location.
>
I'll change this into
pushq arch_rethook_trampoline@...PCREL(%rip)
which I had originally. I was trying to avoid the load from memory,
but that obviously only works if the register is not live.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists