[PATCH 1/2] ARM: check stack pointer in get_wchan

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: check stack pointer in get_wchan

[Konstantin Khlebnikov]

get_wchan() is lockless. Task may wakeup at any time and change its own stack,
thus each next stack frame may be overwritten and filled with random stuff.

/proc/$pid/stack interface had been disabled for non-current tasks, see [1]
But 'wchan' still allows to trigger stack frame unwinding on volatile stack.

This patch fixes oops in unwind_frame() by adding stack pointer validation on
each step (as x86 code do), unwind_frame() already checks frame pointer.

Also I've found another report of this oops on stackoverflow (irony).

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <k.khlebnikov@samsung.com>
Link: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg110589.html [1]
Link: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18479894/unwind-frame-cause-a-kernel-paging-error
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/process.c |    7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
index 94f6b05..92f7b15 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c
@@ -404,6 +404,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(dump_fpu);
 unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p)
 {
 	struct stackframe frame;
+	unsigned long stack_page;
 	int count = 0;
 	if (!p || p == current || p->state == TASK_RUNNING)
 		return 0;
@@ -412,9 +413,11 @@ unsigned long get_wchan(struct task_struct *p)
 	frame.sp = thread_saved_sp(p);
 	frame.lr = 0;			/* recovered from the stack */
 	frame.pc = thread_saved_pc(p);
+	stack_page = (unsigned long)task_stack_page(p);
 	do {
-		int ret = unwind_frame(&frame);
-		if (ret < 0)
+		if (frame.sp < stack_page ||
+		    frame.sp >= stack_page + THREAD_SIZE ||
+		    unwind_frame(&frame) < 0)
 			return 0;
 		if (!in_sched_functions(frame.pc))
 			return frame.pc;

[PATCH 2/2] ARM: fix framepointer check in unwind_frame

[Konstantin Khlebnikov]

This patch fixes corner case when (fp + 4) overflows unsigned long,
for example: fp = 0xFFFFFFFF -> fp + 4 == 3.

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <k.khlebnikov@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 00f79e5..af4e8c8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
 	high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE);
 
 	/* check current frame pointer is within bounds */
-	if (fp < (low + 12) || fp + 4 >= high)
+	if (fp < low + 12 || fp > high - 4)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	/* restore the registers from the stack frame */

[PATCH 2/2] ARM: fix framepointer check in unwind_frame

[Jean Pihet]

On 5 December 2013 09:34, Konstantin Khlebnikov
<k.khlebnikov@samsung.com> wrote:
> This patch fixes corner case when (fp + 4) overflows unsigned long,
> for example: fp = 0xFFFFFFFF -> fp + 4 == 3.
>
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <k.khlebnikov@samsung.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 00f79e5..af4e8c8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
>         high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE);
>
>         /* check current frame pointer is within bounds */
> -       if (fp < (low + 12) || fp + 4 >= high)
> +       if (fp < low + 12 || fp > high - 4)
Shouldn't that use the '>=' comparison?

Jean
>                 return -EINVAL;
>
>         /* restore the registers from the stack frame */
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH 2/2] ARM: fix framepointer check in unwind_frame

[Konstantin Khlebnikov]

On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 13:45 +0100, Jean Pihet wrote:
> On 5 December 2013 09:34, Konstantin Khlebnikov
> <k.khlebnikov@samsung.com> wrote:
> > This patch fixes corner case when (fp + 4) overflows unsigned long,
> > for example: fp = 0xFFFFFFFF -> fp + 4 == 3.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <k.khlebnikov@samsung.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > index 00f79e5..af4e8c8 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
> > @@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
> >         high = ALIGN(low, THREAD_SIZE);
> >
> >         /* check current frame pointer is within bounds */
> > -       if (fp < (low + 12) || fp + 4 >= high)
> > +       if (fp < low + 12 || fp > high - 4)
> Shouldn't that use the '>=' comparison?

nope, fp == high-4 is fine:

-------------------+ 
... -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 | -0
-------------------+
        ^             ^
        +---- fp      +----- high
 
stack frame contains four 'unsigned long' values: {fp, sp, lr, pc}.
'fp' points to 'pc', so totally there are 16 bytes: fp-12..fp+3

> 
> Jean
> >                 return -EINVAL;
> >
> >         /* restore the registers from the stack frame */
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[PATCH 1/2] ARM: check stack pointer in get_wchan

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 12:34:24PM +0400, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> get_wchan() is lockless. Task may wakeup at any time and change its own stack,
> thus each next stack frame may be overwritten and filled with random stuff.
> 
> /proc/$pid/stack interface had been disabled for non-current tasks, see [1]
> But 'wchan' still allows to trigger stack frame unwinding on volatile stack.
> 
> This patch fixes oops in unwind_frame() by adding stack pointer validation on
> each step (as x86 code do), unwind_frame() already checks frame pointer.
> 
> Also I've found another report of this oops on stackoverflow (irony).

Your two patches look fine to me.  Please put them in the patch system
and we'll get them merged - I think they should also be merged into stable
trees too - it looks like this goes all the way back to 2.6.30 kernels.

Thanks.