Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] arm64: Check the return PC against unreliable code sections

From: Mark Brown
Date: Wed May 05 2021 - 12:46:53 EST

On Tue, May 04, 2021 at 02:03:14PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 5/4/21 11:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> >> @@ -118,9 +160,21 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stackframe *frame)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >> frame->pc = ret_stack->ret;
> >> frame->pc = ptrauth_strip_insn_pac(frame->pc);
> >> + return 0;
> >> }

> > Do we not need to look up the range of the restored pc and validate
> > what's being pointed to here? It's not immediately obvious why we do
> > the lookup before handling the function graph tracer, especially given
> > that we never look at the result and there's now a return added skipping
> > further reliability checks. At the very least I think this needs some
> > additional comments so the code is more obvious.

> I want sym_code_ranges[] to contain both unwindable and non-unwindable ranges.
> Unwindable ranges will be special ranges such as the return_to_handler() and
> kretprobe_trampoline() functions for which the unwinder has (or will have)
> special code to unwind. So, the lookup_range() has to happen before the
> function graph code. Please look at the last patch in the series for
> the fix for the above function graph code.

That sounds reasonable but like I say should probably be called out in
the code so it's clear to people working with it.

> On the question of "should the original return address be checked against
> sym_code_ranges[]?" - I assumed that if there is a function graph trace on a
> function, it had to be an ftraceable function. It would not be a part
> of sym_code_ranges[]. Is that a wrong assumption on my part?

I can't think of any cases where it wouldn't be right now, but it seems
easier to just do a redundant check than to have the assumption in the
code and have to think about if it's missing.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature