powerpc: Check end of stack canary at oops time
PATCH 1/1 powerpc: Check end of stack canary at oops time
Add a check for the stack canary when we oops, similar to x86. This should make it clear that we overran our stack:
Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address 0x24652f63700ac689
Faulting instruction address: 0xc000000000063d24
Thread overran stack, or stack corrupted
---
arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c +6 -0
@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@#include <linux/kprobes.h> #include <linux/kdebug.h> #include <linux/perf_event.h> +#include <linux/magic.h> #include <asm/firmware.h> #include <asm/page.h>
@@ -385,6 +386,7 @@ do_sigbus:void bad_page_fault (struct pt_regs *regs,unsigned long address,int sig) {const struct exception_table_entry *entry; +unsigned long *stackend;/* Are we prepared to handle this fault? */ if ((entry =search_exception_tables (regs->nip)) !=NULL ) {
@@ -413,5 +415,9 @@ void bad_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regsprintk (KERN_ALERT "Faulting instruction address: 0x%08lx\n" , regs->nip); + stackend =end_of_stack (current); +if (current != &init_task && *stackend !=STACK_END_MAGIC ) +printk (KERN_ALERT "Thread overran stack, or stack corrupted\n" ); +die ("Kernel access of bad area" , regs, sig); }
Quoted 31 lines · Anton Blanchard
Add a check for the stack canary when we oops, similar to x86. This should make it clear that we overran our stack:
Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address 0x24652f63700ac689Faulting instruction address:
0xc000000000063d24
Thread overran stack, or stack corruptedSigned-off-by Anton Blanchard <[email protected]>---
Index:
powerpc.git/arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c
===================================================================arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c +2
-0@@ -30,6 +30,7 @@#include <linux/kprobes.h> #include <linux/kdebug.h> #include <linux/perf_event.h> +#include <linux/magic.h> #include <asm/firmware.h> #include <asm/page.h> @@ -385,6 +386,7 @@ do_sigbus:void bad_page_fault (struct pt_regs *regs,unsigned long address,int sig) {const struct exception_table_entry *entry; +unsigned long *stackend;/* Are we prepared to handle this fault? */ if ((entry =search_exception_tables (regs->nip)) !=NULL ) {
arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c void bad_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs · line 420
Quoted 6 lines
arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c +3
-0@@ -413,5 +415,9 @@ void bad_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regsprintk (KERN_ALERT "Faulting instruction address: 0x%08lx\n" , regs->nip); + stackend =end_of_stack (current); +if (current != &init_task && *stackend !=STACK_END_MAGIC ) +printk (KERN_ALERT "Thread overran stack, or stack corrupted\n" );
The check for init is just because we haven't set the magic value for init's stack right? But we could.
cheers
Hi,
Quoted 2 lines
The check for init is just because we haven't set the magic value for init's stack right? But we could.
Yeah, it's similar to what x86 are doing now:
commit 0e7810be30f66e9f430c4ce2cd3b14634211690f
Author: Jan Beulich <[email protected]> Date: Fri Nov 20 14:00:14 2009 +0000
x86: Suppress stack overrun message for init_task
init_task doesn't get its stack end location set to STACK_END_MAGIC, and hence the message is confusing rather than helpful in this case.
Adding it directly to init_task would be nice but I suspect we'd either have to make assumptions about end_of_stack in our code or move the canary into the thread_info (so we can statically allocate it via INIT_THREAD_INFO()) or do it at runtime somewhere, hopefully early enough that we couldn't take an oops.
Anton
arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c void bad_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs · line 423
Quoted 12 lines · Anton Blanchard
arch/powerpc/mm/fault.c +4
-0/* Are we prepared to handle this fault? */ if ((entry =search_exception_tables (regs->nip)) !=NULL ) {@@ -413,5 +415,9 @@ void bad_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regsprintk (KERN_ALERT "Faulting instruction address: 0x%08lx\n" , regs->nip); + stackend =end_of_stack (current); +if (current != &init_task && *stackend !=STACK_END_MAGIC ) +printk (KERN_ALERT "Thread overran stack, or stack corrupted\n" ); +die ("Kernel access of bad area" , regs, sig); }
Is it worth making it a __get_user or similar just in case ? I suppose if the stack is really busted we wouldn't even have reached that code ...
Cheers,
Ben.