Re: [PATCH] x86/unwind/orc: Handle kretprobes_trampoline

[Masami Hiramatsu]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 19:16:43 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 21:52:36 -0700
> Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 06:41:01PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 02:03:26PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 07:13:26PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > > From: Marios Pomonis <pomonis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Fix a bug in the ORC unwinder when kretprobes has replaced a return
> > > > > address with the address of `kretprobes_trampoline'. ORC mistakenly
> > > > > assumes that the address in the stack is a return address and decrements
> > > > > it by 1 in order to find the proper depth of the next frame.
> 
> Hmm, with my fixes[1], the kretprobe_trampoline address in the stack will be
> replaced with the correct return address. In that case, that behavior
> sounds correct.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/163163030719.489837.2236069935502195491.stgit@devnote2/

Here is the code which I applied this on my series.

        /* Find IP, SP and possibly regs: */
        switch (orc->type) {
        case UNWIND_HINT_TYPE_CALL:
                ip_p = sp - sizeof(long);

                if (!deref_stack_reg(state, ip_p, &state->ip))
                        goto err;

                state->ip = unwind_recover_ret_addr(state, state->ip,
                                                    (unsigned long *)ip_p);
                state->sp = sp;
                state->regs = NULL;
                state->prev_regs = NULL;
                state->signal = is_kretprobe_trampoline(state->ip);
                break;

Actually, this cause a build issue because I introduced more generic is_kretprobe_trampoline().
Anyway, after calling unwind_recover_ret_addr(), the state->ip should be fixed.
This means that the is_kretprobe_trampoline(state->ip) always be false, and
that is correct because state->ip is recovered with the correct return address
which is call instruction + 5.

So this patch seems not needed, hmm...

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>