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

[Madhavan T. Venkataraman]

On 5/5/21 1:48 PM, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/5/21 11:46 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> I could do something like this:
> 
> - Move all frame->pc checking code into a function called check_frame_pc().
> 
> 	bool	check_frame_pc(frame)
> 	{
> 		Do all the checks including function graph
> 		return frame->pc changed
> 	}
> 
> - Then, in unwind_frame()
> 
> unwind_frame()
> {
> 	int	i;
> 	...
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < MAX_CHECKS; i++) {
> 		if (!check_frame(tsk, frame))

Small typo in the last statement - It should be check_frame_pc().

Sorry.

Madhavan

> 			break;
> 	}
> 
> 	if (i == MAX_CHECKS)
> 		frame->reliable = false;
> 	return 0;
> }
> 
> The above would take care of future cases like kretprobe_trampoline().
> 
> If this is acceptable, then the only question is - what should be the value of
> MAX_CHECKS (I will rename it to something more appropriate)?
> 
> Madhavan
>