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:

quoted

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!

quoted

+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

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel