From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752761AbcHLTPo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:15:44 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57760 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752713AbcHLTPm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:15:42 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 14:15:37 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 51/51] x86/mm: convert arch_within_stack_frames() to
 use the new unwinder
Message-ID: <20160812191537.dilnu4s4gcnddt5h@treble>
References: <cover.1471011425.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <e5636723b781d151e7983c88c6a07c03315e2714.1471011425.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20160812151723.b754g7btabokhvr5@treble>
 <CAGXu5j+ejazCqzxL7d4RkW6+ZOLF6Zjp7eQ8mPySvipd3MOCqg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+ejazCqzxL7d4RkW6+ZOLF6Zjp7eQ8mPySvipd3MOCqg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:15:41 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:38:31AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 09:29:10AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> >> Convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder.
> >>
> >> Boot tested with CONFIG_HARDENED_USERCOPY.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
> >>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c b/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
> >> index 96ce151..9d0913c 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/lib/usercopy.c
> >> @@ -50,12 +50,21 @@ int arch_within_stack_frames(const void * const stack,
> >>                            const void * const stackend,
> >>                            const void *obj, unsigned long len)
> >>  {
> >> -     const void *frame = NULL;
> >> -     const void *oldframe;
> >> +     struct unwind_state state;
> >> +     const void *frame, *oldframe;
> >> +
> >> +     unwind_start(&state, current, NULL, NULL);
> >> +
> >> +     if (!unwind_next_frame(&state))
> >> +             return 0;
> >> +
> >> +     oldframe = unwind_get_stack_ptr(&state);
> >
> > Actually, I think this isn't quite right.  Now that the function isn't
> > inlined, this needs to unwind another frame to be equivalent to current
> > behavior.
> 
> Yeah, that seems right. And IIUC, as long as this is wrapped in the
> CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER check, this won't use the guessing unwinder,
> right? (Which is how it should be.)

Right, only the frame pointer unwinder will be used here, thanks to the
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER guard in thread_info.h.

-- 
Josh