Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-91620-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usercopy: delete __noreturn from usercopy_abort
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
References: <1709516385-7778-1-git-send-email-xiaojiangfeng@huawei.com>
 <CAG48ez1h9X7Qv-5OR6hAhwnSOng6_PSXBaR6cT7xrk2Wzu39Yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <202403040938.D770633@keescook>
CC: <gustavoars@kernel.org>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	<jpoimboe@kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>, <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	<kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, <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: <77bb0d81-f496-7726-9495-57088a4c0bfc@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 11:31:06 +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: <202403040938.D770633@keescook>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 2024/3/5 1:40, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 04:15:07PM +0100, 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.
> 
> FWIW, all email from huawei.com continues to get eaten by anti-spam
> checking. I've reported this a few times -- it'd be really nice if the
> domain configuration could get fixed.
> 
>> [...]
>>> 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.
> 
> Yeah, NAK. usercopy_abort() doesn't return. It ends with BUG().
> 
When the user directly or indirectly calls usercopy_abort,
the final call stack is incorrect, and the
code where the problem occurs cannot be located.
In this case, the user will be frustrated.

For the usercopy_abort function, whether '__noreturn' is added
does not affect the internal behavior of the usercopy_abort function.
Therefore, it is recommended that '__noreturn' be deleted
so that backtrace can work properly.