linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: fix typo(?) in step.c

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]

Message-Id: <20080306075223.BA28B2700FD@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Wed,  5 Mar 2008 23:52:23 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
	hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: fix typo(?) in step.c

> Roland - i guess this means block-stepping (a new ptrace feature in .25) 
> is not particularly well-tested. Do you have any standalone testcases 
> that could be run?

I'm pretty sure that noone really uses it yet.  The test I used when I
originally wrote the feature is in the ptrace-tests suite.  (See
http://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/utrace/tests about that suite.)
I haven't particularly tested it since then, if it got broken later.

http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/tests/ptrace-tests/tests/block-step.c?cvsroot=systemtap

Be sure to compile with current kernel-headers, or hand-tweak to define
PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK.  Use -std=gnu99 -D_GNU_SOURCE.

The bogon came in commit eee3af4a2c83a97fff107ddc445d9df6fded9ce4,
the introduction of the ptrace BTS stuff.  Sorry I did not scour and 
cite every problem in that patch, since I had NAK'd the entire thing
as needing more careful review and incremental introduction after 2.6.25.

As I said then, one of my concerns was with the low-level tweaks not yet
sufficiently baked, independent from my reservations about the ptrace
feature.  Your #if'ing out of the user ABI additions for 2.6.25 does
nothing to remove the unknown new risks from all the tweaks with fingers in
the low-level arch stuff.  This is the sort of thing I was concerned about.
(And this one is easy.)

The block-step test only tested that PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK worked right.
I just souped it up to also test that PTRACE_SINGLESTEP still works
immediately afterwards.  This still does not show any problem from this
bug.  The case that would be broken by it is rather more arcane.  I
haven't worked out the test case that fails with the bogon.

Thanks,
Roland
--
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/