From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
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: Wed, 5 May 2021 12:51:42 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64373047-1029-df65-e7aa-b8058850fbde@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210505163406.GB4541@sirena.org.uk>
On 5/5/21 11:34 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:03:14PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 5/4/21 11:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>>> @@ -118,9 +160,21 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>> frame->pc = ret_stack->ret;
>>>> frame->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc);
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> }
>
>>> Do we not need to look up the range of the restored pc and validate
>>> what's being pointed to here? It's not immediately obvious why we do
>>> the lookup before handling the function graph tracer, especially given
>>> that we never look at the result and there's now a return added skipping
>>> further reliability checks. At the very least I think this needs some
>>> additional comments so the code is more obvious.
>
>> I want sym_code_ranges[] to contain both unwindable and non-unwindable ranges.
>> Unwindable ranges will be special ranges such as the return_to_handler() and
>> kretprobe_trampoline() functions for which the unwinder has (or will have)
>> special code to unwind. So, the lookup_range() has to happen before the
>> function graph code. Please look at the last patch in the series for
>> the fix for the above function graph code.
>
> That sounds reasonable but like I say should probably be called out in
> the code so it's clear to people working with it.
>
OK. To make this better, I will do the lookup_range() after the function
graph code to begin with. Then, in the last patch for the function graph
code, I will move it up. This way, the code is clear and your comment
is addressed.
>> On the question of "should the original return address be checked against
>> sym_code_ranges[]?" - I assumed that if there is a function graph trace on a
>> function, it had to be an ftraceable function. It would not be a part
>> of sym_code_ranges[]. Is that a wrong assumption on my part?
>
> I can't think of any cases where it wouldn't be right now, but it seems
> easier to just do a redundant check than to have the assumption in the
> code and have to think about if it's missing.
>
Agreed. Will do the check.
Madhavan
_______________________________________________
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:[~2021-05-05 17:53 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
2021-05-06 15:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 16:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-05 17:51 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
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=64373047-1029-df65-e7aa-b8058850fbde@linux.microsoft.com \
--to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=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=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).