linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, alex.popov@linux.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, keescook@chromium.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@kernel.org,
	mark.rutland@arm.com, will@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 05/13] stackleak: clarify variable names
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:31:20 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220427173128.2603085-6-mark.rutland@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220427173128.2603085-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>

The logic within __stackleak_erase() can be a little hard to follow, as
`boundary` switches from being the low bound to the high bound mid way
through the function, and `kstack_ptr` is used to represent the start of
the region to erase while `boundary` represents the end of the region to
erase.

Make this a little clearer by consistently using clearer variable names.
The `boundary` variable is removed, the bounds of the region to erase
are described by `erase_low` and `erase_high`, and bounds of the task
stack are described by `task_stack_low` and `task_stck_high`.

As the same time, remove the comment above the variables, since it is
unclear whether it's intended as rationale, a complaint, or a TODO, and
is more confusing than helpful.

There should be no functional change as a result of this patch.

Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
---
 kernel/stackleak.c | 30 ++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/stackleak.c b/kernel/stackleak.c
index 24b7cf01b2972..d5f684dc0a2d9 100644
--- a/kernel/stackleak.c
+++ b/kernel/stackleak.c
@@ -73,40 +73,38 @@ late_initcall(stackleak_sysctls_init);
 static __always_inline void __stackleak_erase(void)
 {
 	const unsigned long task_stack_low = stackleak_task_low_bound(current);
-
-	/* It would be nice not to have 'kstack_ptr' and 'boundary' on stack */
-	unsigned long kstack_ptr = current->lowest_stack;
-	unsigned long boundary = task_stack_low;
+	unsigned long erase_low = current->lowest_stack;
+	unsigned long erase_high;
 	unsigned int poison_count = 0;
 	const unsigned int depth = STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH / sizeof(unsigned long);
 
 	/* Search for the poison value in the kernel stack */
-	while (kstack_ptr > boundary && poison_count <= depth) {
-		if (*(unsigned long *)kstack_ptr == STACKLEAK_POISON)
+	while (erase_low > task_stack_low && poison_count <= depth) {
+		if (*(unsigned long *)erase_low == STACKLEAK_POISON)
 			poison_count++;
 		else
 			poison_count = 0;
 
-		kstack_ptr -= sizeof(unsigned long);
+		erase_low -= sizeof(unsigned long);
 	}
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS
-	current->prev_lowest_stack = kstack_ptr;
+	current->prev_lowest_stack = erase_low;
 #endif
 
 	/*
-	 * Now write the poison value to the kernel stack. Start from
-	 * 'kstack_ptr' and move up till the new 'boundary'. We assume that
-	 * the stack pointer doesn't change when we write poison.
+	 * Now write the poison value to the kernel stack between 'erase_low'
+	 * and 'erase_high'. We assume that the stack pointer doesn't change
+	 * when we write poison.
 	 */
 	if (on_thread_stack())
-		boundary = current_stack_pointer;
+		erase_high = current_stack_pointer;
 	else
-		boundary = current_top_of_stack();
+		erase_high = current_top_of_stack();
 
-	while (kstack_ptr < boundary) {
-		*(unsigned long *)kstack_ptr = STACKLEAK_POISON;
-		kstack_ptr += sizeof(unsigned long);
+	while (erase_low < erase_high) {
+		*(unsigned long *)erase_low = STACKLEAK_POISON;
+		erase_low += sizeof(unsigned long);
 	}
 
 	/* Reset the 'lowest_stack' value for the next syscall */
-- 
2.30.2


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-04-27 17:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-27 17:31 [PATCH v2 00/13] stackleak: fixes and rework Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 01/13] arm64: stackleak: fix current_top_of_stack() Mark Rutland
2022-05-04 16:41   ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-04 19:01     ` Kees Cook
2022-05-04 19:55       ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-05  8:25         ` Will Deacon
2022-05-08 17:24   ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 11:36     ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 02/13] stackleak: move skip_erasing() check earlier Mark Rutland
2022-05-08 17:44   ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 11:40     ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 03/13] stackleak: remove redundant check Mark Rutland
2022-05-08 18:17   ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 11:46     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-11  3:00       ` Kees Cook
2022-05-11  8:02         ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-11 14:44           ` Kees Cook
2022-05-12  9:14             ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-15 16:17               ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-24 10:03                 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-26 22:09                   ` Alexander Popov
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 04/13] stackleak: rework stack low bound handling Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2022-05-08 20:49   ` [PATCH v2 05/13] stackleak: clarify variable names Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 13:01     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-11  3:05       ` Kees Cook
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 06/13] stackleak: rework stack high bound handling Mark Rutland
2022-05-08 21:27   ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 11:22     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-15 16:32       ` Alexander Popov
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 07/13] stackleak: rework poison scanning Mark Rutland
2022-05-09 13:51   ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 13:13     ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-15 17:33       ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-24 13:31         ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-26 23:25           ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-31 18:13             ` Kees Cook
2022-06-03 16:55               ` Alexander Popov
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 08/13] lkdtm/stackleak: avoid spurious failure Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 09/13] lkdtm/stackleak: rework boundary management Mark Rutland
2022-05-04 19:07   ` Kees Cook
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 10/13] lkdtm/stackleak: prevent unexpected stack usage Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 11/13] lkdtm/stackleak: check stack boundaries Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 12/13] stackleak: add on/off stack variants Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 13/13] arm64: entry: use stackleak_erase_on_task_stack() Mark Rutland
2022-05-04 16:42   ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-04 19:16 ` [PATCH v2 00/13] stackleak: fixes and rework Kees Cook

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=20220427173128.2603085-6-mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex.popov@linux.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --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).