Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-91585-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usercopy: delete __noreturn from usercopy_abort
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
References: <1709516385-7778-1-git-send-email-xiaojiangfeng@huawei.com>
 <CAG48ez1h9X7Qv-5OR6hAhwnSOng6_PSXBaR6cT7xrk2Wzu39Yg@mail.gmail.com>
CC: <gustavoars@kernel.org>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<jpoimboe@kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>, <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, <keescook@chromium.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <nixiaoming@huawei.com>, <kepler.chenxin@huawei.com>,
	<wangbing6@huawei.com>, <wangfangpeng1@huawei.com>, <douzhaolei@huawei.com>
From: Jiangfeng Xiao <xiaojiangfeng@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <a6591565-2c67-13fb-746e-b3040657212b@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 10:54:32 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.1
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez1h9X7Qv-5OR6hAhwnSOng6_PSXBaR6cT7xrk2Wzu39Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 2024/3/4 23:15, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 3:02 AM Jiangfeng Xiao <xiaojiangfeng@huawei.com> wrote:
>> When the last instruction of a noreturn function is a call
>> to another function, the return address falls outside
>> of the function boundary. This seems to cause kernel
>> to interrupt the backtrace.
> [...]
>> Delete __noreturn from usercopy_abort,
> 
> This sounds like the actual bug is in the backtracing logic? I don't
> think removing __noreturn annotations from an individual function is a
> good fix, since the same thing can happen with other __noreturn
> functions depending on what choices the compiler makes.
> .
> 
Yes, you make a point. This may be a bug is in the backtracing logic, but
the kernel backtracing always parses symbols using (lr) instead of (lr-4).
This may be due to historical reasons or more comprehensive considerations.
In addition, modifying the implementation logic of the kernel backtracing
has a great impact. Therefore, I do not dare to modify the implementation
logic of the kernel backtracing.

Not all noreturn functions are ended with calling other functions.
Therefore, only a few individual functions may have the same problem.
In addition, deleting '__noreturn' from usercopy_abort does not
change the internal behavior of usercopy_abort function.
Therefore, there is no risk. Deleting '__noreturn' from usercopy_abort
is the solution that I can think of with minimal impact and minimum risk.

If you will submit a better patch to solve this problem,
I would like to learn from you. Thank you.