From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: objtool clac/stac handling change..
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 10:05:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200702080510.GY4781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200702000041.movaiqpyzdmhlu67@treble>
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 07:00:41PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 02:02:42PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So the objtool rule might be:
> >
> > - in a STAC region, no exception handlers at all except for that
> > ex_handler_uaccess case
> >
> > - and that case will clear AC if it triggers.
> >
> > and maybe such an objtool check would show some case where I'm wrong,
> > and we do some MSR read other other fault thing within a STAC region.
> > That _sounds_ wrong to me, but maybe we have reason to do so that I
> > just can't think or right now?
>
> Here's an attempt at implementing this, in case anybody wants to play
> with it. Usual disclaimers apply...
Looks about right, two niggles below.
> @@ -2335,6 +2340,35 @@ static void fill_alternative_cfi(struct objtool_file *file, struct instruction *
> }
> }
>
> +static int handle_stac(struct symbol *func, struct instruction *insn,
> + struct insn_state *state)
> +{
> + if (state->uaccess) {
> + WARN_FUNC("recursive UACCESS enable", insn->sec, insn->offset);
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + state->uaccess = true;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int handle_clac(struct symbol *func, struct instruction *insn,
> + struct insn_state *state)
> +{
> + if (!state->uaccess && func) {
> + WARN_FUNC("redundant UACCESS disable", insn->sec, insn->offset);
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + if (func_uaccess_safe(func) && !state->uaccess_stack) {
> + WARN_FUNC("UACCESS-safe disables UACCESS", insn->sec, insn->offset);
> + return -1;
> + }
> +
> + state->uaccess = false;
> + return 0;
> +}
For both these we return -1 on error and then all callers convert it to
1. So why not have this return 1 and pass any !0 value through?
> /*
> * Follow the branch starting at the given instruction, and recursively follow
> * any other branches (jumps). Meanwhile, track the frame pointer state at
> @@ -2393,6 +2427,17 @@ static int validate_branch(struct objtool_file *file, struct symbol *func,
> if (alt->skip_orig)
> skip_orig = true;
>
> + if (alt->exception) {
> + if (!alt->uaccess && state.uaccess) {
> + WARN_FUNC("non-user-access exception with uaccess enabled",
> + sec, insn->offset);
> + return 1;
> + }
This is Linus' new rule that AC code should not get any exceptions
except ex_handler_uaccess.
> +
> + if (alt->uaccess && handle_clac(func, insn, &state))
> + return 1;
And this is ex_handler_uaccess() mucking with regs->flags, right? Might
want a comment.
> + }
> +
> ret = validate_branch(file, func, alt->insn, state);
> if (ret) {
> if (backtrace)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-02 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-01 18:22 Linus Torvalds
2020-07-01 18:29 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-01 19:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-01 20:36 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-01 20:51 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-07-01 21:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 0:00 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2020-07-02 8:05 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-07-01 20:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 0:47 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-02 2:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 2:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 3:08 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-01 18:41 ` Al Viro
2020-07-01 19:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-01 19:59 ` Al Viro
2020-07-01 20:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 13:34 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-02 14:01 ` Al Viro
2020-07-02 14:04 ` Al Viro
2020-07-02 15:13 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-07-02 20:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-03 3:59 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-03 3:17 ` Michael Ellerman
2020-07-03 5:27 ` Christophe Leroy
2020-07-02 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 20:17 ` Al Viro
2020-07-02 20:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-02 20:59 ` Al Viro
2020-07-02 21:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-03 1:33 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 3:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-03 21:02 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 21:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-03 21:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-07-03 22:25 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 21:59 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 22:04 ` Al Viro
2020-07-03 22:12 ` Al Viro
2020-07-04 0:49 ` Al Viro
2020-07-04 1:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-04 2:30 ` Al Viro
2020-07-04 3:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-04 2:11 ` Al Viro
2020-07-07 12:35 ` David Laight
2020-07-10 22:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-07-13 9:32 ` David Laight
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=20200702080510.GY4781@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@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
Powered by JetHome