[LTP] [PATCH] Revert "pkey01: Adding test for PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE"
Jan Stancek
jstancek@redhat.com
Tue Nov 19 14:31:55 CET 2024
On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 2:11 PM Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 7:58 PM Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Li, Martin,
> >
> > > Sorry, I forgot to CC Li in the patch.
> >
> > > On 15. 11. 24 16:44, Martin Doucha wrote:
> > > > This reverts commit d2b8a476c29d52c484b387454082bbc906b0b4f8.
> >
> > > > Remove the PKEY_DISABLE_EXECUTE subtest. The function_size() code
> > > > is broken in a way that I cannot easily fix. The function tries
> > > > to calculate the size of a function by finding the first RET
> > > > instruction. However, in 32bit LTP builds, the code gets compiled
> > > > to this:
> >
> > > > 0804b690 <function_size>:
> > > > 804b690: 8b 4c 24 04 mov 0x4(%esp),%ecx
> > > > 804b694: 0f b6 01 movzbl (%ecx),%eax
> > > > 804b697: 83 c0 3e add $0x3e,%eax
> > > > 804b69a: 3c 01 cmp $0x1,%al
> > > > 804b69c: 76 1a jbe 804b6b8 <function_size+0x28>
> > > > 804b69e: 89 c8 mov %ecx,%eax
> > > > 804b6a0: 83 c0 01 add $0x1,%eax
> > > > 804b6a3: 0f b6 10 movzbl (%eax),%edx
> > > > 804b6a6: 83 c2 3e add $0x3e,%edx
> > > > 804b6a9: 80 fa 01 cmp $0x1,%dl
> > > > 804b6ac: 77 f2 ja 804b6a0 <function_size+0x10>
> > > > 804b6ae: 29 c8 sub %ecx,%eax
> > > > 804b6b0: 83 c0 10 add $0x10,%eax
> > > > 804b6b3: c3 ret
> > > > 804b6b4: 8d 74 26 00 lea 0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
> > > > 804b6b8: b8 10 00 00 00 mov $0x10,%eax
> > > > 804b6bd: c3 ret
> > > > 804b6be: 66 90 xchg %ax,%ax
> >
> > > > If you look closely enough, you'll notice a C2 byte in add $0x3e,%edx
> > > > instruction on address 804b6a6. The function will assume this byte is
> > > > a RET instruction, return a size that's 22 bytes too short and then
> > > > the code execution inside the executable buffer will run past the end
> > > > of buffer, resulting in a segfault.
> >
> > Martin, thanks a lot for debugging!
> >
> > Acked-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> >
> > Other option would be to disable this test only for 32bit (keep it for 64bit).
> > Li, any change you could have look into it?
>
> I vaguely recall we already dealt with something similar for a
> different test, which
> copied function, then changed protection to EXEC and finally ran it.
> I'll see if I can find it.
Do we need function_size() to return accurate number? In mprotect04
we ended up using CFLAGS += -falign-functions=64 and copying everything
until end of page. Function was dummy, so it always fit and it's not an
issue if we copied more.
More information about the ltp
mailing list