[PATCH v2] arm64: Work around missing `bti c` in modules
D Scott Phillips
scott at os.amperecomputing.com
Thu Sep 1 08:41:27 PDT 2022
GCC does not insert a `bti c` instruction at the beginning of a function
when all callers reach the function through a direct branch[1]. In the case
of cross-section calls (like __init to non __init), a thunk may be inserted
which uses an indirect branch. If that happens, the first instruction in
the callee function will result in a Branch Target Exception due to the
missing `bti c`.
Handle Branch Target Exceptions which happen in the kernel due to module
calls from __init to non-__init by clearing PSTATE.BTYPE and resuming.
[1]: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
Signed-off-by: D Scott Phillips <scott at os.amperecomputing.com>
---
Changes since v1:
- Add the gcc bug id into the traps.c comment
- Cover the try_module_get with the preempt_disable
- Add a CC_HAS_ config for the compiler bug that we'll eventually refine
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++
arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c | 12 +++++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
index cd93c9041679..d5d4d2891657 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
@@ -1860,6 +1860,9 @@ config ARM64_BTI_KERNEL
is enabled and the system supports BTI all kernel code including
modular code must have BTI enabled.
+config CC_HAS_CROSS_SECTION_BTI_MISSING
+ def_bool CC_IS_GCC # https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
+
config CC_HAS_BRANCH_PROT_PAC_RET_BTI
# GCC 9 or later, clang 8 or later
def_bool $(cc-option,-mbranch-protection=pac-ret+leaf+bti)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c
index 56cefd33eb8e..696e3f3c90ea 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry-common.c
@@ -388,6 +388,15 @@ static void noinstr el1_undef(struct pt_regs *regs)
exit_to_kernel_mode(regs);
}
+static void noinstr el1_bti(struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ enter_from_kernel_mode(regs);
+ local_daif_inherit(regs);
+ do_bti(regs);
+ local_daif_mask();
+ exit_to_kernel_mode(regs);
+}
+
static void noinstr el1_dbg(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long esr)
{
unsigned long far = read_sysreg(far_el1);
@@ -427,6 +436,9 @@ asmlinkage void noinstr el1h_64_sync_handler(struct pt_regs *regs)
case ESR_ELx_EC_UNKNOWN:
el1_undef(regs);
break;
+ case ESR_ELx_EC_BTI:
+ el1_bti(regs);
+ break;
case ESR_ELx_EC_BREAKPT_CUR:
case ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_CUR:
case ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_CUR:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
index 9ac7a81b79be..f1135166ecdb 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c
@@ -501,8 +501,47 @@ NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(do_undefinstr);
void do_bti(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
- BUG_ON(!user_mode(regs));
- force_signal_inject(SIGILL, ILL_ILLOPC, regs->pc, 0);
+ struct module *mod;
+
+ if (user_mode(regs)) {
+ force_signal_inject(SIGILL, ILL_ILLOPC, regs->pc, 0);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ /*
+ * GCC does not insert a `bti c` instruction at the beginning
+ * of a function when all callers reach the function through a
+ * direct branch. In the case of cross-section calls (like
+ * __init to non __init), a thunk may be inserted which uses
+ * an indirect branch. If that happens, the first instruction
+ * in the callee function will result in a Branch Target
+ * Exception due to the missing `bti c`.
+ *
+ * https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106671
+ *
+ * If that's the case here, clear PSTATE.BTYPE and resume.
+ */
+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CC_HAS_CROSS_SECTION_BTI_MISSING)) {
+ preempt_disable();
+ mod = __module_text_address(regs->pc);
+
+ if (mod && try_module_get(mod)) {
+ bool from_init;
+
+ from_init = within_module_init(regs->regs[30], mod);
+ module_put(mod);
+
+ if (from_init) {
+ preempt_enable();
+ regs->pstate &= ~PSR_BTYPE_MASK;
+ return;
+ }
+ }
+
+ preempt_enable();
+ }
+
+ die("Oops - BTI", regs, 0);
}
NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(do_bti);
--
2.37.2
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list