linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] Demultiplexing SIGTRAP signal

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:42:02 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@...ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	paulus@...ba.org, roland@...hat.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
	linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Demultiplexing SIGTRAP signal


* Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@...ibm.com> wrote:

> Currently a SIGTRAP signal can denote any one of below reasons.
> 	- Breakpoint hit
> 	- H/W debug register hit
> 	- Single step
> 	- SIGTRAP signal sent through kill() or rasie()
> 
> Architectures like powerpc/parisc provides infrastructure to 
> demultiplex SIGTRAP signal by passing down the information for 
> receiving SIGTRAP through si_code of siginfot_t structure. Here is an 
> attempt is generalise this infrastructure by extending it to x86 and 
> x86_64 archs.

no fundamental objections - assuming existing x86 apps have not grown an 
ABI dependency on the existing send_sigtrap() semantics. (Debuggers and 
JITs would be a candidate for such dependencies.)

a small implementational detail, this bit:

> @@ -935,8 +936,22 @@ void __kprobes do_debug(struct pt_regs *
>  			goto clear_TF_reenable;
>  	}
>  
> -	/* Ok, finally something we can handle */
> -	send_sigtrap(tsk, regs, error_code);
> +	tsk->thread.trap_no = 1;
> +	tsk->thread.error_code = error_code;
> +
> +	memset(&info, 0, sizeof(info));
> +	info.si_signo = SIGTRAP;
> +	if (condition & DR_STEP)
> +		info.si_code = TRAP_TRACE;
> +	else if (condition & (DR_TRAP0|DR_TRAP1|DR_TRAP2|DR_TRAP3))
> +		info.si_code = TRAP_HWBKPT;
> +	else
> +		info.si_code = TRAP_BRKPT;
> +	/* User-mode ip? */
> +	info.si_addr = user_mode_vm(regs) ? (void __user *) regs->ip : NULL;
> +
> +	/* Send us the fake SIGTRAP */
> +	force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, tsk);

should be pushed into [a sufficiently extended] send_sigtrap() instead.

and this bit:

> -	info.si_code = TRAP_BRKPT;
> +	if (condition & DR_STEP)
> +		info.si_code = TRAP_TRACE;
> +	else if (condition & (DR_TRAP0|DR_TRAP1|DR_TRAP2|DR_TRAP3))
> +		info.si_code = TRAP_HWBKPT;
> +	else
> +		info.si_code = TRAP_BRKPT;

should be separated into a helper function as well i guess.

Roland, any objections to the core idea (or to the implementation)?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/