From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752703AbcHLPR3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:17:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50130 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752160AbcHLPR1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 11:17:27 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:17:23 -0500 From: Josh Poimboeuf To: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H . Peter Anvin" Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski , Linus Torvalds , Steven Rostedt , Brian Gerst , Kees Cook , Peter Zijlstra , Frederic Weisbecker , Byungchul Park , Nilay Vaish Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 51/51] x86/mm: convert arch_within_stack_frames() to use the new unwinder Message-ID: <20160812151723.b754g7btabokhvr5@treble> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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 [10.5.110.30]); Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:17:26 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > --- > 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. -- Josh