From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
keescook@chromium.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
luto@kernel.org, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/13] stackleak: clarify variable names
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 23:49:46 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e1cf0177-40a0-ffca-6be4-57fd97860c4a@linux.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220427173128.2603085-6-mark.rutland@arm.com>
On 27.04.2022 20:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
> The logic within __stackleak_erase() can be a little hard to follow, as
> `boundary` switches from being the low bound to the high bound mid way
> through the function, and `kstack_ptr` is used to represent the start of
> the region to erase while `boundary` represents the end of the region to
> erase.
>
> Make this a little clearer by consistently using clearer variable names.
> The `boundary` variable is removed, the bounds of the region to erase
> are described by `erase_low` and `erase_high`, and bounds of the task
> stack are described by `task_stack_low` and `task_stck_high`.
A typo here in `task_stck_high`.
> As the same time, remove the comment above the variables, since it is
> unclear whether it's intended as rationale, a complaint, or a TODO, and
> is more confusing than helpful.
Yes, this comment is a bit confusing :) I can elaborate.
In the original grsecurity patch, the stackleak erasing was written in asm.
When I adopted it and proposed for the upstream, Linus strongly opposed this.
So I developed stackleak erasing in C.
And I wrote this comment to remember that having 'kstack_ptr' and 'boundary'
variables on the stack (which we are clearing) would not be good.
That was also the main reason why I reused the 'boundary' variable: I wanted the
compiler to allocate it in the register and I avoided creating many local variables.
Mark, did your refactoring make the compiler allocate local variables on the
stack instead of the registers?
> There should be no functional change as a result of this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@linux.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> kernel/stackleak.c | 30 ++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/stackleak.c b/kernel/stackleak.c
> index 24b7cf01b2972..d5f684dc0a2d9 100644
> --- a/kernel/stackleak.c
> +++ b/kernel/stackleak.c
> @@ -73,40 +73,38 @@ late_initcall(stackleak_sysctls_init);
> static __always_inline void __stackleak_erase(void)
> {
> const unsigned long task_stack_low = stackleak_task_low_bound(current);
> -
> - /* It would be nice not to have 'kstack_ptr' and 'boundary' on stack */
> - unsigned long kstack_ptr = current->lowest_stack;
> - unsigned long boundary = task_stack_low;
> + unsigned long erase_low = current->lowest_stack;
> + unsigned long erase_high;
> unsigned int poison_count = 0;
> const unsigned int depth = STACKLEAK_SEARCH_DEPTH / sizeof(unsigned long);
>
> /* Search for the poison value in the kernel stack */
> - while (kstack_ptr > boundary && poison_count <= depth) {
> - if (*(unsigned long *)kstack_ptr == STACKLEAK_POISON)
> + while (erase_low > task_stack_low && poison_count <= depth) {
> + if (*(unsigned long *)erase_low == STACKLEAK_POISON)
> poison_count++;
> else
> poison_count = 0;
>
> - kstack_ptr -= sizeof(unsigned long);
> + erase_low -= sizeof(unsigned long);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_STACKLEAK_METRICS
> - current->prev_lowest_stack = kstack_ptr;
> + current->prev_lowest_stack = erase_low;
> #endif
>
> /*
> - * Now write the poison value to the kernel stack. Start from
> - * 'kstack_ptr' and move up till the new 'boundary'. We assume that
> - * the stack pointer doesn't change when we write poison.
> + * Now write the poison value to the kernel stack between 'erase_low'
> + * and 'erase_high'. We assume that the stack pointer doesn't change
> + * when we write poison.
> */
> if (on_thread_stack())
> - boundary = current_stack_pointer;
> + erase_high = current_stack_pointer;
> else
> - boundary = current_top_of_stack();
> + erase_high = current_top_of_stack();
>
> - while (kstack_ptr < boundary) {
> - *(unsigned long *)kstack_ptr = STACKLEAK_POISON;
> - kstack_ptr += sizeof(unsigned long);
> + while (erase_low < erase_high) {
> + *(unsigned long *)erase_low = STACKLEAK_POISON;
> + erase_low += sizeof(unsigned long);
> }
>
> /* Reset the 'lowest_stack' value for the next syscall */
_______________________________________________
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:[~2022-05-08 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-27 17:31 [PATCH v2 00/13] stackleak: fixes and rework Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 01/13] arm64: stackleak: fix current_top_of_stack() Mark Rutland
2022-05-04 16:41 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-04 19:01 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-04 19:55 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-05 8:25 ` Will Deacon
2022-05-08 17:24 ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 11:36 ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 02/13] stackleak: move skip_erasing() check earlier Mark Rutland
2022-05-08 17:44 ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 11:40 ` Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 03/13] stackleak: remove redundant check Mark Rutland
2022-05-08 18:17 ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 11:46 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-11 3:00 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-11 8:02 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-11 14:44 ` Kees Cook
2022-05-12 9:14 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-15 16:17 ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-24 10:03 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-26 22:09 ` Alexander Popov
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 04/13] stackleak: rework stack low bound handling Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 05/13] stackleak: clarify variable names Mark Rutland
2022-05-08 20:49 ` Alexander Popov [this message]
2022-05-10 13:01 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-11 3:05 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 06/13] stackleak: rework stack high bound handling Mark Rutland
2022-05-08 21:27 ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 11:22 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-15 16:32 ` Alexander Popov
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 07/13] stackleak: rework poison scanning Mark Rutland
2022-05-09 13:51 ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-10 13:13 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-15 17:33 ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-24 13:31 ` Mark Rutland
2022-05-26 23:25 ` Alexander Popov
2022-05-31 18:13 ` Kees Cook
2022-06-03 16:55 ` Alexander Popov
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 08/13] lkdtm/stackleak: avoid spurious failure Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 09/13] lkdtm/stackleak: rework boundary management Mark Rutland
2022-05-04 19:07 ` Kees Cook
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 10/13] lkdtm/stackleak: prevent unexpected stack usage Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 11/13] lkdtm/stackleak: check stack boundaries Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 12/13] stackleak: add on/off stack variants Mark Rutland
2022-04-27 17:31 ` [PATCH v2 13/13] arm64: entry: use stackleak_erase_on_task_stack() Mark Rutland
2022-05-04 16:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2022-05-04 19:16 ` [PATCH v2 00/13] stackleak: fixes and rework Kees Cook
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=e1cf0177-40a0-ffca-6be4-57fd97860c4a@linux.com \
--to=alex.popov@linux.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).