linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] x86/entry: add unwind hint annotations
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 14:09:54 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUNhPgrQV9Sj+ZP3A_jSHbww4XPpBLJQ15OmH3nsHBsdg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170629190559.ttw52ahwtsjynayx@treble>

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:50:18AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > There's a bug here that will need a small change to the entry code.
>> >
>> > Mike Galbraith reported:
>> >
>> >   WARNING: can't dereference registers at ffffc900089d7e08 for ip ffffffff81740bbb
>> >
>> > After some looking I found that it's caused by the following code
>> > snippet in the 'interrupt' macro in entry_64.S:
>> >
>> >         /*
>> >          * Save previous stack pointer, optionally switch to interrupt stack.
>> >          * irq_count is used to check if a CPU is already on an interrupt stack
>> >          * or not. While this is essentially redundant with preempt_count it is
>> >          * a little cheaper to use a separate counter in the PDA (short of
>> >          * moving irq_enter into assembly, which would be too much work)
>> >          */
>> >         movq    %rsp, %rdi
>> >         incl    PER_CPU_VAR(irq_count)
>> >         cmovzq  PER_CPU_VAR(irq_stack_ptr), %rsp
>> >         UNWIND_HINT_REGS base=rdi
>> >         pushq   %rdi
>> >         UNWIND_HINT_REGS indirect=1
>> >
>> > The problem is that it's changing the stack pointer *before* writing the
>> > previous stack pointer (push %rdi).  So when unwinding from an NMI which
>> > hit between the rsp write and the rdi push, the unwinder tries to access
>> > the regs on the previous stack (by reading rdi), but the previous stack
>> > pointer isn't there yet, so the access is considered out of bounds.
>>
>> Ugh, that code.  Does this problem go away with this patch applied:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/entry_ist&id=2231ec7e0bcc1a2bc94a17081511ab54cc6badd1
>>
>> If so, want to update the patch for new kernels (shouldn't conflict
>> with anything except your unwind hints)?
>
> I don't think that patch will fix it, because it still updates rsp
> *before* writing the old rsp on the new stack.  So there's still a
> window where the "previous stack" pointer is missing.

But it's in a register.  Is undwarf not able to grok that?  I have no
fundamental problem with pushing it to the new stack first, but the
actual asm is nastier because we don't have an addressing mode that's
*(*(gs:blahblahblah)) = reg.

At least my patch makes all the copied of this code identical so the
problem can be solved only once.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-06-29 21:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-28 15:11 [PATCH v2 0/8] x86: undwarf unwinder Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-28 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] objtool: move checking code to check.c Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30 13:12   ` [tip:core/objtool] objtool: Move " tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-28 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] objtool, x86: add several functions and files to the objtool whitelist Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30 13:12   ` [tip:core/objtool] objtool, x86: Add " tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-28 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] objtool: stack validation 2.0 Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30  8:32   ` Ingo Molnar
2017-06-30 13:23     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30 13:26       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30 14:09     ` [PATCH] objtool: silence warnings for functions which use iret Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30 17:49       ` [tip:core/objtool] objtool: Silence warnings for functions which use IRET tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30 13:13   ` [tip:core/objtool] objtool: Implement stack validation 2.0 tip-bot for Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-28 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] objtool: add undwarf debuginfo generation Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29  7:14   ` Ingo Molnar
2017-06-29 13:40     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29  7:25   ` Ingo Molnar
2017-06-29 14:04     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29 14:46       ` Ingo Molnar
2017-06-29 15:06         ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-06 20:36           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-07  9:44             ` Ingo Molnar
2017-07-11  2:58               ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-07-11  8:40                 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-06-28 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] objtool, x86: add facility for asm code to provide unwind hints Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-28 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] x86/entry: add unwind hint annotations Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29 17:53   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29 18:50     ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-06-29 19:05       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29 21:09         ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2017-06-29 21:41           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29 22:59             ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-06-30  2:12               ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30  5:05                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-06-30  5:41                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-06-30 13:11                     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30 15:44                       ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-06-30 15:55                         ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-30 15:56                           ` Andy Lutomirski
2017-06-30 16:16                             ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-28 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] x86/asm: add unwind hint annotations to sync_core() Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-28 15:11 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] x86/unwind: add undwarf unwinder Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29  7:55 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] x86: " Ingo Molnar
2017-06-29 14:12   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2017-06-29 19:13     ` Josh Poimboeuf

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=CALCETrUNhPgrQV9Sj+ZP3A_jSHbww4XPpBLJQ15OmH3nsHBsdg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=jslaby@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@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).