DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 5A98E80B29
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 16:16:25 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1 09/10] x86/unwind: add ORC unwinder
Message-ID: <20170720211625.2uebcyyxfceenzw6@treble>
References: <cover.1499786555.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <55eba34724a72b4b03d1e787ef17397931af68fe.1499786555.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 <20170714172214.pnol6ve45qpa33si@treble>
 <ea6d5215-8d43-1696-09e8-b42fd82a45cf@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ea6d5215-8d43-1696-09e8-b42fd82a45cf@suse.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0.1 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1963
Lines: 59

On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 09:12:16AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 07/14/2017, 07:22 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > +void __unwind_start(struct unwind_state *state, struct task_struct *task,
> > +		    struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long *first_frame)
> > +{
> > +	memset(state, 0, sizeof(*state));
> > +	state->task = task;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Refuse to unwind the stack of a task while it's executing on another
> > +	 * CPU.  This check is racy, but that's ok: the unwinder has other
> > +	 * checks to prevent it from going off the rails.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (task_on_another_cpu(task))
> > +		goto done;
> > +
> > +	if (regs) {
> > +		if (user_mode(regs))
> > +			goto done;
> > +
> > +		state->ip = regs->ip;
> > +		state->sp = kernel_stack_pointer(regs);
> > +		state->bp = regs->bp;
> > +		state->regs = regs;
> > +		state->full_regs = true;
> > +		state->signal = true;
> > +
> > +	} else if (task == current) {
> > +		asm volatile("lea (%%rip), %0\n\t"
> > +			     "mov %%rsp, %1\n\t"
> > +			     "mov %%rbp, %2\n\t"
> > +			     : "=r" (state->ip), "=r" (state->sp),
> > +			       "=r" (state->bp));
> > +
> > +	} else {
> > +		struct inactive_task_frame *frame = (void *)task->thread.sp;
> > +
> > +		state->ip = frame->ret_addr;
> > +		state->sp = task->thread.sp;
> > +		state->bp = frame->bp;
> 
> I wonder, if the reads from 'frame' should have READ_ONCE_NOCHECK for
> the same reason as in:
> commit 84936118bdf37bda513d4a361c38181a216427e0
> Author: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> Date:   Mon Jan 9 12:00:23 2017 -0600
> 
>     x86/unwind: Disable KASAN checks for non-current tasks
> ?

Yeah, maybe so.  Since the task_on_another_cpu() check above is racy,
here it's remotely possible that the task has since starting executing
and has poisoned the stack memory we're about to read.

I don't know how realistic that scenario is, but it wouldn't hurt to add
a couple of READ_ONCE_NOCHECKs here for the 'frame' dereferences.

-- 
Josh