Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Feb 2022 15:59:39 -0800 | From | Kees Cook <> | Subject | Re: Stackleak vs noinstr (Was: [GIT pull] objtool/core for v5.16-rc1) |
| |
On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 11:03:44AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 10:05:50AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 09:00:36AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2021 at 01:44:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > > > do_machine_check()+0x27: call to stackleak_track_stack ... > > > > do_syscall_64()+0x9: call to stackleak_track_stack ... > > > > do_int80_syscall_32()+0x9: call to stackleak_track_stack ... > > > > exc_general_protection()+0x22: call to stackleak_track_stack ... > > > > fixup_bad_iret()+0x20: call to stackleak_track_stack ... > > > > .entry.text+0x10e6: call to stackleak_erase ... > > > > .entry.text+0x143: call to stackleak_erase ... > > > > .entry.text+0x17d9: call to stackleak_erase ... > > > > > > > > most seem to be about the stackleak thing, > > > > > > Right, I recently ran into this and hacen't yet had time to look into > > > it. I suspect my normal build box doesn't have the GCC plugin crud > > > enabled or somesuch. > > > > > > I think the GCC stackleak plugin needs fixing, specifically it needs a > > > function attribute such that it will not emit instrumentation in noinstr > > > functions. I'll go chase down the developer of that thing. > > > > Alexander, is there any way to make this plugin grow a function > > attribute which we can add to noinstr ? There's a strict requirement the > > compiler doesn't add extra code to noinstr functions these days. > > > > We'll 'soon' be running noinstr C code before switching to kernel page > > tables even. > > Using my pre-release GCC-12 compiler (the only one I have with plugin > crud enabled apparently), the below seems to work. > > Having the plugin gate on section name seems a lot hacky, but given it's > already doing that, one more doesn't hurt. > > --- > diff --git a/kernel/stackleak.c b/kernel/stackleak.c > index ce161a8e8d97..135866ca8878 100644 > --- a/kernel/stackleak.c > +++ b/kernel/stackleak.c > @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ int stack_erasing_sysctl(struct ctl_table *table, int write, > #define skip_erasing() false > #endif /* CONFIG_STACKLEAK_RUNTIME_DISABLE */ > > -asmlinkage void notrace stackleak_erase(void) > +asmlinkage noinstr void stackleak_erase(void) > { > /* It would be nice not to have 'kstack_ptr' and 'boundary' on stack */ > unsigned long kstack_ptr = current->lowest_stack; > @@ -102,7 +102,6 @@ asmlinkage void notrace stackleak_erase(void) > /* Reset the 'lowest_stack' value for the next syscall */ > current->lowest_stack = current_top_of_stack() - THREAD_SIZE/64; > } > -NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(stackleak_erase); > > void __used __no_caller_saved_registers notrace stackleak_track_stack(void) > { > diff --git a/scripts/gcc-plugins/stackleak_plugin.c b/scripts/gcc-plugins/stackleak_plugin.c > index e9db7dcb3e5f..07688a1c686b 100644 > --- a/scripts/gcc-plugins/stackleak_plugin.c > +++ b/scripts/gcc-plugins/stackleak_plugin.c > @@ -446,6 +446,8 @@ static bool stackleak_gate(void) > return false; > if (!strncmp(TREE_STRING_POINTER(section), ".meminit.text", 13)) > return false; > + if (!strncmp(TREE_STRING_POINTER(section), ".noinstr.text", 13)) > + return false; > } > > return track_frame_size >= 0;
Did this ever turn into a real patch? I don't see anything in -next for it, so I assume it's still needed.
-- Kees Cook
| |