linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 13/X] uprobes: introduce UTASK_SSTEP

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:41:27 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/X] uprobes: introduce UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED logic

On 10/22, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:53:44PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Finally, add UTASK_SSTEP_TRAPPED state/code to handle the case when
> > xol insn itself triggers the signal.
> >
> > In this case we should restart the original insn even if the task is
> > already SIGKILL'ed (say, the coredump should report the correct ip).
> > This is even more important if the task has a handler for SIGSEGV/etc,
> > The _same_ instruction should be repeated again after return from the
> > signal handler, and SSTEP can never finish in this case.
>
> Oleg,
>
> Not sure I understand this completely...

I hope you do not think I do ;)

> When you say 'correct ip' you mean the original vaddr where we now have
> a uprobe breakpoint and not the xol copy, right?

Yes,

> Coredump needs to report the correct ip, but should it also not report
> correctly the instruction that caused the signal? Ergo, shouldn't we
> put the original instruction back at the uprobed vaddr?

OK, now I see what you mean. I was confused by the "restore the original
instruction before _restart_" suggestion.

Agreed! it would be nice to "hide" these int3's if we dump the core, but
I think this is a bit off-topic. It makes sense to do this in any case,
even if the core-dumping was triggered by another thread/insn. It makes
sense to remove all int3's, not only at regs->ip location. But how can
we do this? This is nontrivial.

And. Even worse. Suppose that you do "gdb probed_application". Now you
see int3's in the disassemble output. What can we do?

I think we can do nothing, at least currently. This just reflects the
fact that uprobe connects to inode, not to process/mm/etc.

What do you think?

Oleg.

--
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/