|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen/livepatch: Don't crash on encountering STN_UNDEF relocations
>>> On 14.06.17 at 12:13, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 14/06/17 11:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 13.06.17 at 22:51, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/livepatch.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/livepatch.c
>>> @@ -170,14 +170,22 @@ int arch_livepatch_perform_rela(struct livepatch_elf
> *elf,
>>> uint8_t *dest = base->load_addr + r->r_offset;
>>> uint64_t val;
>>>
>>> - if ( symndx > elf->nsym )
>>> + if ( symndx == STN_UNDEF )
>>> + val = 0;
>>> + else if ( symndx > elf->nsym )
>>> {
>>> dprintk(XENLOG_ERR, LIVEPATCH "%s: Relative relocation wants
> symbol@%u which is past end!\n",
>>> elf->name, symndx);
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> -
>>> - val = r->r_addend + elf->sym[symndx].sym->st_value;
>>> + else if ( !elf->sym[symndx].sym )
>>> + {
>>> + dprintk(XENLOG_ERR, LIVEPATCH "%s: No symbol@%u\n",
>>> + elf->name, symndx);
>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>> + }
>>> + else
>>> + val = r->r_addend + elf->sym[symndx].sym->st_value;
>> I don't understand this: st_value for STN_UNDEF is going to be zero
>> (so far there's also no extension defined for the first entry, afaict),
>> so there should be no difference between hard-coding the zero and
>> reading the symbol table entry. Furthermore r_addend would still
>> need applying. And finally "val" is never being cast to a pointer, and
>> hence I miss the connection to whatever crash you've been
>> observing.
>
> elf->sym[0].sym is the NULL pointer.
>
> ->st_value dereferences it.
Ah, but that is then what you want to change (unless we decide
to outright refuse STN_UNDEF, which still depends on why it's
there in the first place).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |