|
Message-ID: <757cbafb-1e13-8989-e30d-33c557d33cc4@linux.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 18:47:14 +0300 From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>, Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Michal Marek <michal.lkml@...kovi.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>, Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@...ux.ibm.com>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>, Sven Schnelle <svens@...ckframe.org>, Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>, Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@....com>, Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>, Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>, PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>, Brad Spengler <spender@...ecurity.net>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gcc@....gnu.org, notify@...nel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] gcc-plugins/stackleak: Use asm instrumentation to avoid useless register saving On 09.06.2020 21:46, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 04:49:54PM +0300, Alexander Popov wrote: >> Let's improve the instrumentation to avoid this: >> >> 1. Make stackleak_track_stack() save all register that it works with. >> Use no_caller_saved_registers attribute for that function. This attribute >> is available for x86_64 and i386 starting from gcc-7. >> >> 2. Insert calling stackleak_track_stack() in asm: >> asm volatile("call stackleak_track_stack" :: "r" (current_stack_pointer)) >> Here we use ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT trick from arch/x86/include/asm/asm.h. >> The input constraint is taken into account during gcc shrink-wrapping >> optimization. It is needed to be sure that stackleak_track_stack() call is >> inserted after the prologue of the containing function, when the stack >> frame is prepared. > > Very cool; nice work! > >> +static void add_stack_tracking(gimple_stmt_iterator *gsi) >> +{ >> + /* >> + * The 'no_caller_saved_registers' attribute is used for >> + * stackleak_track_stack(). If the compiler supports this attribute for >> + * the target arch, we can add calling stackleak_track_stack() in asm. >> + * That improves performance: we avoid useless operations with the >> + * caller-saved registers in the functions from which we will remove >> + * stackleak_track_stack() call during the stackleak_cleanup pass. >> + */ >> + if (lookup_attribute_spec(get_identifier("no_caller_saved_registers"))) >> + add_stack_tracking_gasm(gsi); >> + else >> + add_stack_tracking_gcall(gsi); >> +} > > The build_for_x86 flag is only ever used as an assert() test against > no_caller_saved_registers, but we're able to test for that separately. > Why does the architecture need to be tested? (i.e. when this flag > becomes supported o other architectures, why must it still be x86-only?) The inline asm statement that is used for instrumentation is arch-specific. Trying to add asm volatile("call stackleak_track_stack") in gcc plugin on aarch64 makes gcc break spectacularly. I pass the target arch name to the plugin and check it explicitly to avoid that. Moreover, I'm going to create a gcc enhancement request for supporting no_caller_saved_registers attribute on aarch64. Best regards, Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.