Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 6 May 2021 14:45:42 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     jpoimboe@redhat.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, jthierry@redhat.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/4] arm64: Check the return PC against unreliable
 code sections
Message-ID: <20210506134542.GD4642@sirena.org.uk>
References: <65cf4dfbc439b010b50a0c46ec500432acde86d6>
 <20210503173615.21576-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210503173615.21576-3-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210504160508.GC7094@sirena.org.uk>
 <1bd2b177-509a-21d9-e349-9b2388db45eb@linux.microsoft.com>
 <0f72c4cb-25ef-ee23-49e4-986542be8673@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20210505164648.GC4541@sirena.org.uk>
 <9781011e-2d99-7f46-592c-621c66ea66c3@linux.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9781011e-2d99-7f46-592c-621c66ea66c3@linux.microsoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 01:48:21PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 5/5/21 11:46 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

> > 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:

> unwind_frame()
> {
> 	int	i;
> 	...
>=20
> 	for (i =3D 0; i < MAX_CHECKS; i++) {
> 		if (!check_frame(tsk, frame))
> 			break;
> 	}

I think that could work, yes.  Have to see the actual code (and other
people's opinions!).

> If this is acceptable, then the only question is - what should be the val=
ue of
> MAX_CHECKS (I will rename it to something more appropriate)?

I'd expect something like 10 to be way more than we'd ever need, or we
could define it down to the 2 checks we expect to be possible ATM to be
conservative.  I'm tempted to be permissive if we have sufficient other
checks but I'm not 100% sure on that.

--OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmCT8wYACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9A5/Qf5AQzIK1iGk05+Ew7d4dR1Bd1YEuSiIlmDHZ+9WIWaZ0SR0GNG5mtqwX1B
pJhBkSXH7XsChPi1INElGPgOomaF8H2V2Z7C/QUI/KW1PqyQHmlFOQahHNPaRn6/
kxuuG1prGKfuPZ2+wFCdJZXHk1FWm/VpjVpiweX/E0kzx+V8NHNbKFwMuBSNCEH6
Jo8VMKsTSMghThbfpVAuYxPCaJB/kCaYU1KQL2Ktzq+n0CXsOdyHXolOE9D/0N8A
KgLCewUwIOpFXU+8gJspoxYXd1VIEzRG+lgKwCYuv6XBCZIOK2cXLvtPMU4xw9wj
mVA3fT2D8o0uPAQF+2Zy24K/f6wbgA==
=eeY2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J--