[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 18:36:31 +0300
From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, keescook@...omium.org,
pageexec@...email.hu, spender@...ecurity.net, Ingo Molnar
<mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, tycho@...ker.com,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5 2/5] gcc-plugins: Add STACKLEAK plugin for tracking
the kernel stack
On 30.10.2017 21:06, Alexander Popov wrote:
> On 30.10.2017 20:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 07:51:33PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote:
>>> When the thread stack is exhausted, this BUG() is hit. But do_error_trap(),
>>> which handles the exception, calls track_stack() itself again (since it is
>>> instrumented by the gcc plugin). So this recursion proceeds with exhausting the
>>> thread stack.
>>
>> Add a __attribute__((nostacktrack)) on it?
>
> Yes, I already tried some blacklisting in the plugin, but it didn't really help,
> because:
>
> 1. there are other (more than 5) instrumented functions, that are called during
> BUG() handling too;
>
> 2. decreasing CONFIG_STACKLEAK_TRACK_MIN_SIZE would add more instrumented
> functions, which should be manually blacklisted (not good).
>
> I guess handling BUG() in another stack would be a solution. For example, Andy
> Lutomirski calls handle_stack_overflow in the DOUBLEFAULT_STACK
> (arch/x86/mm/fault.c). Should I do something similar?
Hello Andy! May I ask your advice?
When CONFIG_VMAP_STACK is disabled and STACKLEAK is enabled (for example, on
x86_32), we need another way to detect stack depth overflow. That is the reason
of having this BUG() in track_stack(). But it turns out to be recursive since
track_stack() will be called again during BUG() handling.
We can avoid that recursion by handling oops in another stack. It looks similar
to the way you call handle_stack_overflow() in arch/x86/mm/fault.c. But it seems
that I can't reuse that code, am I right?
How should I do it properly?
By the way, you wrote that you have some entry code changes which conflict with
STACKLEAK. May I ask for more details?
Best regards,
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
