From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: jpoimboe@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, jthierry@redhat.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] arm64: Check the return PC against unreliable code sections
Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 14:45:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210506134542.GD4642@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9781011e-2d99-7f46-592c-621c66ea66c3@linux.microsoft.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 992 bytes --]
On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 01:48:21PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 5/5/21 11:46 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I think that works even if it's hard to love the goto, might want some
> > defensiveness to ensure we can't somehow end up in an infinite loop with
> > a sufficiently badly formed stack.
> I could do something like this:
> unwind_frame()
> {
> int i;
> ...
>
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_CHECKS; i++) {
> if (!check_frame(tsk, frame))
> break;
> }
I think that could work, yes. Have to see the actual code (and other
people's opinions!).
> If this is acceptable, then the only question is - what should be the value of
> MAX_CHECKS (I will rename it to something more appropriate)?
I'd expect something like 10 to be way more than we'd ever need, or we
could define it down to the 2 checks we expect to be possible ATM to be
conservative. I'm tempted to be permissive if we have sufficient other
checks but I'm not 100% sure on that.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-06 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <65cf4dfbc439b010b50a0c46ec500432acde86d6>
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] arm64: Stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] arm64: Introduce stack " madvenka
2021-05-04 15:50 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-04 19:14 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-04 21:52 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-04 23:13 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 0:07 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-05 0:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] arm64: Check the return PC against unreliable code sections madvenka
2021-05-04 16:05 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-04 19:03 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-04 19:32 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 16:46 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-05 18:48 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 18:50 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 13:45 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-05-06 15:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 16:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-05 17:51 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 19:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-05 20:00 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] arm64: Handle miscellaneous functions in .text and .init.text madvenka
2021-05-06 14:12 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:30 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:32 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:44 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:56 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:37 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:57 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] arm64: Handle funtion graph tracer better in the unwinder madvenka
2021-05-06 14:43 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210506134542.GD4642@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).