From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F268C433ED for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 17:53:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from desiato.infradead.org (desiato.infradead.org [90.155.92.199]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BDBE61176 for ; Wed, 5 May 2021 17:53:16 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0BDBE61176 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.microsoft.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=desiato.20200630; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding :Content-Type:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From: References:Cc:To:Subject:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=MLp+9mGUb8WUBGfqY+6qh5ErRXXtZLEMmsylQ6qDRWw=; b=KMa9qHutDYvjRTH0gbvaazEM4 euibCVQwSIGv5uLxcy1zG7egjLJo+osJxgDW3BD339v4K6XOLC4rsbFGnhaje0Q05L/ylwaOqlzMj 8W9YYsIYwvEkebgzaRwYm17pDFwon2jt98FPK8Lllj0/GtjtZLG6Y6gbD7S7JAE8LBhI/78S640JK 9r5OWBno95sClijZuM/W8JvPPygtnZd0T8aPM/kgus+YQVa16EtuoNFEkPSHNIlQsbCliUwgsEEiG MTUNdbvUr+sOZwVE8M2Pvm6utDluvxOTVMUnR1AtrPwWy9qeDPs3H8pPYCac+FyYIl1y/gbKoqB3Y VQj/Id1dw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=desiato.infradead.org) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1leLgc-001wV5-Lr; Wed, 05 May 2021 17:51:50 +0000 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([2607:7c80:54:e::133]) by desiato.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1leLga-001wUs-Hx for linux-arm-kernel@desiato.infradead.org; Wed, 05 May 2021 17:51:48 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To: Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description; bh=sdd8ZMJAgH8gVKupmR0QjAVLyv9Ta+9CM3nIhnT4w4E=; b=JEoNzBEoH0UAwraAHTR/qNaBqG FBTSLkQ6GqtLl0WKbVJEFpHlWP83l/mQm6Rrt3siqyevaGLSRuCtLlBjz3/Y14IOATlKxglfUaprm FnBklCf9NXNkCYArNzIe6lLBUxl+wP1+OVdj4VyP3zA9S+WOdad2TfucRS5Y8yXUJlrrRDFFVyqW7 I4LDxUvBbqSMyZTKTuFUe8wjbZpsmkbBhBRjFoPzAykMulP39dJK5UmZdCCx3UBWOOupNTrFHPQ/+ b9PMF8X2GY8Tg6SLKTlGNS8DdmV8P7sCY5g+CI8PzrUOBdkCAcqnDwhD75fcpHE8EfA7LZzkvy/DL rzEf0Axw==; Received: from linux.microsoft.com ([13.77.154.182]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1leLgX-00564B-Sv for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 05 May 2021 17:51:47 +0000 Received: from [192.168.254.32] (unknown [47.187.223.33]) by linux.microsoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24BC220B7178; Wed, 5 May 2021 10:51:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 linux.microsoft.com 24BC220B7178 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.microsoft.com; s=default; t=1620237103; bh=sdd8ZMJAgH8gVKupmR0QjAVLyv9Ta+9CM3nIhnT4w4E=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=C52y7+v8ilF8BexdEy/Wkqfza8Rzms0fSCvyQ9ulzKSjekGM8BRm9cRpZqNzS5W9h EIcCsR2tBclzDi/ycQ5EEVUUYIt84oU3VROjxUcutquknWLFcHsZ5NCbFIkhPnVtuD Bvn1ceilFKmtswxjkUzyiFqKarfVpHCBGPQ7kCwM= Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] arm64: Check the return PC against unreliable code sections To: Mark Brown 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 References: <65cf4dfbc439b010b50a0c46ec500432acde86d6> <20210503173615.21576-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210503173615.21576-3-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210504160508.GC7094@sirena.org.uk> <1bd2b177-509a-21d9-e349-9b2388db45eb@linux.microsoft.com> <20210505163406.GB4541@sirena.org.uk> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" Message-ID: <64373047-1029-df65-e7aa-b8058850fbde@linux.microsoft.com> Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 12:51:42 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210505163406.GB4541@sirena.org.uk> Content-Language: en-US X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20210505_105145_990562_A39DCCD7 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 27.43 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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