linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [Patch 1/1] [Self Ptrace] System call notification with self

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]

Message-ID: <48B6A71A.9010305@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:24:42 +0200
From:	Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heicars2@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	sameske@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch 1/1] [Self Ptrace] System call notification with
 self_ptrace

Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 08/28, Pierre Morel wrote:
>   
>> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>     
>>> On 08/27, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> On s390 the patch changes handle_signal(), this is not clear to me too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> The patch clears the trace flags before delivering the signal so
>>>> that the signal handler can use system call without bouncing again.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Yes I see. But the signal handler for SIGSYS can fisrt do
>>> sys_ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_OFF) (which is filtered out), and then use any
>>> other syscall.
>>>
>>>       
>> It is right but brings the overhead of a syscall.
>>     
>
> Well, this overhead is very small compared to the signal delivery.
>   
May be, but very high compared to the operation to just
clear a flag in the task struct.
This operation must be done anyway.
>   
>>> With this patch PT_SELF is cleared on any signal. This doesn't look
>>> right. Let's suppose that another signal comes in parallel with SIGSYS.
>>> It is very possible that the handler for that another signal will be
>>> called first, this handler can do some syscall which will be "missed".
>>>
>>>       
>> If the tracing application catches all signals before delivering
>> them to the instrumented original handler there is no problem,
>> the catching code can reset PTRACE_SELF_ON before calling the
>> instrumented application's original handler.
>> The instrumented code will then bounce as expected.
>>     
>
> Sorry, can't understand the text above :(
>
> OK, let's suppose the application does
>
> 	ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_ON);
> 	...
> 	syscall();
>
> This "syscall()" above should trigger the handler for SIGSYS.
> But what if another signal (with handler) comes in between?
> In that case handle_signal() clears PT_SELF/TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE,
> this syscall() (or any other) doesn't send SIGSYS.
>   
ok, please read "set PTRACE_SELF_ON"
where I wrote "reset PTRACE_SELF_ON" above.

Now, suppose the application does the following:

sigsys_handler(sig)
{
....
ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_ON);
}

sigx_handler(sig)
{
....
ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_ON);
if (sig_has_a_handler)
call_the_handler()
ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_OFF);
...
ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_ON);
}

main(){
...
signal(SIGSYS, sigsys_handler);
for(i=0; i<MAXSIGS; i++)
signal(i, sigx_handler);
ptrace(PTRACE_SELF_ON);
jump_into_instrumented_code;
...
}

If the instrumented code ever does a call to
signal(2), the call will be received by sig_sys() handler,
where the call the application signal handler can be performed with
PTRACE_SELF_ON.
This implies appropriate instrumentation of signal(2) and sigaction(2).

Pierre

-- 
=============
Pierre Morel
RTOS and Embedded Linux

--
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/