From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] arm64: Check the return PC against unreliable code sections
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 17:46:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210505164648.GC4541@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f72c4cb-25ef-ee23-49e4-986542be8673@linux.microsoft.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 755 bytes --]
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:32:35PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> If you prefer, I could do something like this:
>
> check_pc:
> if (!__kernel_text_address(frame->pc))
> frame->reliable = false;
>
> range = lookup_range(frame->pc);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> if (tsk->ret_stack &&
> frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler) {
> ...
> frame->pc = ret_stack->ret;
> frame->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc);
> goto check_pc;
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER */
> Is that acceptable?
I think that works even if it's hard to love the goto, might want some
defensiveness to ensure we can't somehow end up in an infinite loop with
a sufficiently badly formed stack.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] arm64: Check the return PC against unreliable code sections
Date: Wed, 5 May 2021 17:46:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210505164648.GC4541@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0f72c4cb-25ef-ee23-49e4-986542be8673@linux.microsoft.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 755 bytes --]
On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:32:35PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> If you prefer, I could do something like this:
>
> check_pc:
> if (!__kernel_text_address(frame->pc))
> frame->reliable = false;
>
> range = lookup_range(frame->pc);
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
> if (tsk->ret_stack &&
> frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler) {
> ...
> frame->pc = ret_stack->ret;
> frame->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc);
> goto check_pc;
> }
> #endif /* CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER */
> Is that acceptable?
I think that works even if it's hard to love the goto, might want some
defensiveness to ensure we can't somehow end up in an infinite loop with
a sufficiently badly formed stack.
[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-05 17:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <65cf4dfbc439b010b50a0c46ec500432acde86d6>
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 0/4] arm64: Stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-05-03 17:36 ` madvenka
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 1/4] arm64: Introduce stack " madvenka
2021-05-03 17:36 ` madvenka
2021-05-04 15:50 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-04 15:50 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-04 19:14 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-04 19:14 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-04 21:52 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-04 21:52 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-04 23:13 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-04 23:13 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 0:07 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-05 0:07 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-05 0:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 0:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] arm64: Check the return PC against unreliable code sections madvenka
2021-05-03 17:36 ` madvenka
2021-05-04 16:05 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-04 16:05 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-04 19:03 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-04 19:03 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-04 19:32 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-04 19:32 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 16:46 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2021-05-05 16:46 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-05 18:48 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 18:48 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 18:50 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 18:50 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 13:45 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 13:45 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:21 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 16:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-05 16:34 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-05 17:51 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 17:51 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 19:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-05 19:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2021-05-05 20:00 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-05 20:00 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 3/4] arm64: Handle miscellaneous functions in .text and .init.text madvenka
2021-05-03 17:36 ` madvenka
2021-05-06 14:12 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 14:12 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:30 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:30 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:32 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:32 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:44 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:44 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:56 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:56 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:37 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:37 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:57 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:57 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-03 17:36 ` [RFC PATCH v3 4/4] arm64: Handle funtion graph tracer better in the unwinder madvenka
2021-05-03 17:36 ` madvenka
2021-05-06 14:43 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 14:43 ` Mark Brown
2021-05-06 15:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-06 15:20 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
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=20210505164648.GC4541@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
--cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.