lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/3] objtool: check: Fully validate the stack frame
From
Date


On 10/12/20 4:35 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 11:21:49AM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
>> On 9/29/20 8:18 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>>> "Stack frame" has more than one meaning now, I suppose. i.e. it could
>>> also include the callee-saved registers and any other stack space
>>> allocated by the function.
>>>
>>> Would "call frame" be clearer?
>>>
>>> CALL_FRAME_BP_OFFSET
>>> CALL_FRAME_RA_OFFSET
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> I would've thought that the call-frame could include the stackframe + other
>> callee saved regs.
>
> Hm, probably so.
>
>> Whereas stackframe tends to used for the caller's frame pointer +
>> return address (i.e. what allows unwinding). Unless I'm getting lost
>> with things.
>
> I've always seen "stack frame" used to indicate the function's entire
> stack.
>
>> And if call frame is associated with the region starting from the stack
>> pointer at the parent call point (since this is what CFA is), then it
>> shouldn't be associated with the framepointer + return address structure
>> since this could be anywhere on the call frame (not at a fixed offset) as
>> long as the new frame pointer points to the structure.
>
> I suppose "call frame" and "stack frame" probably mean the same thing,
> in which case neither is appropriate here...
>
> In fact, maybe we could forget the concept of a frame (or even a struct)
> here.
>
> If cfa.base is CFI_BP, then is regs[CFI_BP].offset always the same as
> -cfa.offset? i.e. could the BP checks could it just be a simple
>
> regs[CFI_BP].offset == -cfa.offset
>
> check?
>

I guess that makes sense. If the above was no true it would mean that BP
is not pointing to the unwind information.

> And then is RA at regs[CFI_BP].offset + 8?
>

In the case of aarch64, the saved frame pointer and return address
appear in the same order as on x86_64. So that would work. If that can
make things simpler for now I can go with that.

Thanks for the suggestion.

--
Julien Thierry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-13 14:13    [W:0.080 / U:2.148 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site