From: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jpoimboe@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org
Cc: alexandre.chartre@oracle.com
Subject: [PATCH V2] objtool/x86: objtool can confuse memory and stack access
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:34:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240329153416.899057-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> (raw)
The encoding of an x86 instruction can include a ModR/M and a SIB
(Scale-Index-Base) byte to describe the addressing mode of the
instruction.
objtool processes all addressing mode with a SIB base of 5 as having
%rbp as the base register. However, a SIB base of 5 means that the
effective address has either no base (if ModR/M mod is zero) or %rbp
as the base (if ModR/M mod is 1 or 2). This can cause objtool to confuse
an absolute address access with a stack operation.
For example, objtool will see the following instruction:
4c 8b 24 25 e0 ff ff mov 0xffffffffffffffe0,%r12
as a stack operation (i.e. similar to: mov -0x20(%rbp), %r12).
[Note that this kind of weird absolute address access is added by the
compiler when using KASAN.]
If this perceived stack operation happens to reference the location
where %r12 was pushed on the stack then the objtool validation will
think that %r12 is being restored and this can cause a stack state
mismatch.
This kind behavior was seen on xfs code, after a minor change (convert
kmem_alloc() to kmalloc()):
>> fs/xfs/xfs.o: warning: objtool: xfs_da_grow_inode_int+0x6c1: stack state mismatch: reg1[12]=-2-48 reg2[12]=-1+0
Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202402220435.MGN0EV6l-lkp@intel.com/
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>
---
tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c b/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
index 3a1d80a7878d3..5872818b8930c 100644
--- a/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
+++ b/tools/objtool/arch/x86/decode.c
@@ -125,8 +125,14 @@ bool arch_pc_relative_reloc(struct reloc *reloc)
#define is_RIP() ((modrm_rm & 7) == CFI_BP && modrm_mod == 0)
#define have_SIB() ((modrm_rm & 7) == CFI_SP && mod_is_mem())
+/*
+ * Check the ModRM register. If there is a SIB byte then check with
+ * the SIB base register. But if the SIB base is 5 (i.e. CFI_BP) and
+ * ModRM mod is 0 then there is no base register.
+ */
#define rm_is(reg) (have_SIB() ? \
- sib_base == (reg) && sib_index == CFI_SP : \
+ sib_base == (reg) && sib_index == CFI_SP && \
+ (sib_base != CFI_BP || modrm_mod != 0): \
modrm_rm == (reg))
#define rm_is_mem(reg) (mod_is_mem() && !is_RIP() && rm_is(reg))
--
2.39.3
reply other threads:[~2024-03-29 15:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20240329153416.899057-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com \
--to=alexandre.chartre@oracle.com \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®