linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 05/10] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support

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:	Fri, 20 May 2016 01:16:33 -0400
From:	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To:	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
	Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Robin Murphy <Robin.Murphy@....com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
	Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
	Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
	John Blackwood <john.blackwood@...r.com>,
	Feng Kan <fkan@....com>,
	Balamurugan Shanmugam <bshanmugam@....com>,
	Vladimir Murzin <Vladimir.Murzin@....com>,
	Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 05/10] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support

On 05/12/2016 11:01 AM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi David, Sandeepa,
>
> On 27/04/16 19:53, David Long wrote:
>> From: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..dfa1b1f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,520 @@
>> +/*
>> + * arch/arm64/kernel/kprobes.c
>> + *
>> + * Kprobes support for ARM64
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2013 Linaro Limited.
>> + * Author: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.prabhu@...aro.org>
>> + *
>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> + *
>> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
>> + * General Public License for more details.
>> + *
>> + */
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/kprobes.h>
>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#include <linux/stop_machine.h>
>> +#include <linux/stringify.h>
>> +#include <asm/traps.h>
>> +#include <asm/ptrace.h>
>> +#include <asm/cacheflush.h>
>> +#include <asm/debug-monitors.h>
>> +#include <asm/system_misc.h>
>> +#include <asm/insn.h>
>> +#include <asm/uaccess.h>
>> +
>> +#include "kprobes-arm64.h"
>> +
>> +#define MIN_STACK_SIZE(addr)	min((unsigned long)MAX_STACK_SIZE,	\
>> +	(unsigned long)current_thread_info() + THREAD_START_SP - (addr))
>
> What if we probe something called on the irq stack?
> This needs the on_irq_stack() checks too, the start/end can be found from the
> per-cpu irq_stack value.
>
> [ ... ]
>

OK.

>> +int __kprobes setjmp_pre_handler(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs *regs)
>> +{
>> +	struct jprobe *jp = container_of(p, struct jprobe, kp);
>> +	struct kprobe_ctlblk *kcb = get_kprobe_ctlblk();
>> +	long stack_ptr = kernel_stack_pointer(regs);
>> +
>> +	kcb->jprobe_saved_regs = *regs;
>> +	memcpy(kcb->jprobes_stack, (void *)stack_ptr,
>> +	       MIN_STACK_SIZE(stack_ptr));
>
> I wonder if we need this stack save/restore?
>
> The comment next to the equivalent code for x86 says:
>> gcc assumes that the callee owns the argument space and could overwrite it,
>> e.g. tailcall optimization. So, to be absolutely safe we also save and
>> restore enough stack bytes to cover the argument area.
>
> On arm64 the first eight arguments are passed in registers, so we might not need
> this stack copy. (sparc and powerpc work like this too, their versions of this
> function don't copy chunks of the stack).
>
> ... then I went looking for functions with >8 arguments...
>
> Looking at the arm64 defconfig dwarf debug data, there are 71 of these that
> don't get inlined, picking at random:
>> rockchip_clk_register_pll() has 13
>> fib_dump_info() has 11
>> vma_merge() has 10
>> vring_create_virtqueue() has 10
> etc...
>
> So we do need this stack copying, so that we can probe these function without
> risking the arguments being modified.
>
> It may be worth including a comment to the effect that this stack save/restore
> is needed for functions that pass >8 arguments where the pre-handler may change
> these values on the stack.
>
>

I can add a comment.

>> +	preempt_enable_no_resched();
>> +	return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>

Thanks,
-dl