linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] x86: Split syscall_trace

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, 28 Jul 2014 13:23:13 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux MIPS Mailing List <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/8] x86: Split syscall_trace_enter into two phases

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> I am really sorry for delay.
>
> This is on top of the recent change from Kees, right? Could me remind me
> where can I found the tree this series based on? So that I could actually
> apply these changes...

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git/log/?h=seccomp/fastpath

The first four patches are already applied there.

>
> On 07/21, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> +long syscall_trace_enter_phase2(struct pt_regs *regs, u32 arch,
>> +                             unsigned long phase1_result)
>>  {
>>       long ret = 0;
>> +     u32 work = ACCESS_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags) &
>> +             _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY;
>> +
>> +     BUG_ON(regs != task_pt_regs(current));
>>
>>       user_exit();
>>
>> @@ -1458,17 +1562,20 @@ long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>        * do_debug() and we need to set it again to restore the user
>>        * state.  If we entered on the slow path, TF was already set.
>>        */
>> -     if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLESTEP))
>> +     if (work & _TIF_SINGLESTEP)
>>               regs->flags |= X86_EFLAGS_TF;
>
> This looks suspicious, but perhaps I misread this change.
>
> If I understand correctly, syscall_trace_enter() can avoid _phase2() above.
> But we should always call user_exit() unconditionally?

Damnit.  I read that every function called by user_exit, and none of
them give any indication of why they're needed for traced syscalls but
not for untraced syscalls.  On a second look, it seems that TIF_NOHZ
controls it.  I'll update the code to call user_exit iff TIF_NOHZ is
set.  If that's still wrong, then I don't see how the current code is
correct either.

>
> And we should always set X86_EFLAGS_TF if TIF_SINGLESTEP? IIRC, TF can be
> actually cleared on a 32bit kernel if we step over sysenter insn?

I don't follow.  If TIF_SINGLESTEP, then phase1 will return a nonzero
value, and phase2 will set TF.

I admit I don't really understand all the TF machinations.

--Andy
--
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/