linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH tip/master V2 4/8] kprobes/x86: Do not modify singlestep buffer while resuming

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:28:14 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH tip/master V2 4/8] kprobes/x86: Do not modify
 singlestep buffer while resuming

On Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:04:19 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> * Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> > Do not modify singlestep execution buffer (kprobe.ainsn.insn)
> > while resuming from single-stepping, instead, modifies
> > the buffer to add a jump back instruction at preparing
> > buffer.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c |   42 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> > index 6327f95..ea3b8e5 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/core.c
> > @@ -399,23 +399,36 @@ int __copy_instruction(u8 *dest, u8 *src)
> >  	return length;
> >  }
> >  
> > +/* Prepare reljump right after instruction to boost */
> > +static void prepare_boost(struct kprobe *p, int length)
> > +{
> > +	if (can_boost(p->ainsn.insn, p->addr) &&
> > +	    MAX_INSN_SIZE - length >= RELATIVEJUMP_SIZE) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * These instructions can be executed directly if it
> > +		 * jumps back to correct address.
> > +		 */
> > +		synthesize_reljump((void *)p->ainsn.insn + length,
> > +				   (void *)p->addr + length);
> > +		p->ainsn.boostable = 1;
> > +	} else
> > +		p->ainsn.boostable = -1;
> 
> Those imbalanced curly braces are not proper kernel style.

Ah, OK, I'll fix that. 

> 
> Also, is the (void *) cast required? arch.insns ought to be void * already, right? 

Hmm, it is kprobe_opcode_t *, but anyway, on x86 it is same,, since kprobe_opcode_t
on x86 is u8.

> (I haven't checking whether that's true for all architectures.)

It is OK because this is x86 very specific code.

Thank you,

> 
> Btw., the original code had the curly braces right:
> 
> > -	if (p->ainsn.boostable == 0) {
> > -		if ((regs->ip > copy_ip) &&
> > -		    (regs->ip - copy_ip) + 5 < MAX_INSN_SIZE) {
> > -			/*
> > -			 * These instructions can be executed directly if it
> > -			 * jumps back to correct address.
> > -			 */
> > -			synthesize_reljump((void *)regs->ip,
> > -				(void *)orig_ip + (regs->ip - copy_ip));
> > -			p->ainsn.boostable = 1;
> > -		} else {
> > -			p->ainsn.boostable = -1;
> > -		}
> > -	}
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>