linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers

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:	Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:11:01 -0400
From:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
To:	Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>
Cc:	prasanna@...ibm.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...ibm.com>,
	Richard J Moore <richardj_moore@...ibm.com>,
	Michel Dagenais <michel.dagenais@...ymtl.ca>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>, ltt-dev@...fik.org,
	systemtap@...rces.redhat.com, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Linux Kernel Markers

* Martin Bligh (mbligh@...gle.com) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >* Martin Bligh (mbligh@...gle.com) wrote:
> >
> >jump. I think it would be doable to overwrite a 5+ bytes instruction with 
> >a NOP
> >non-atomically in all cases, but as the instructions not in the prologue 
> >seems to
> >be smaller :
> >
> >prologue on x86
> >   0:   55                      push   %ebp
> >   1:   89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
> >epilogue on x86
> >   3:   5d                      pop    %ebp
> >   4:   c3                      ret
> >
> >Then is can be a problem. Ideas are welcome.
> 
> Ugh, yes that's somewhat problematic. It does seem rather unlikely that
> there's a function call in the function prologue when we're busy 
> offloading stuff onto the stack, but still ...
> 
A function call is not the cause of the problem : an interrupt/trap is.

> For the cases where we're prepared to overwrite the call instruction in
> the caller, rather than insert an extra jump in the callee, can we not
> do that atomically by overwriting the address we're jumping to (the
> call is obviously there already)? Doesn't fix function pointers, etc,
> but might work well for the simple case at least.
> 
I don't think we have any guarantee that the function pointer in the call is
aligned, so I guess it would not be an atomic replacement.

Mathieu

OpenPGP public key:              http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080/key/compudj.gpg
Key fingerprint:     8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 
-
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/