linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] kreplace: Rebootless kernel updates

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: <20081121133800.GA5244@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:08:00 +0530
From:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To:	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	mhiramat@...hat.com, contact@...lice.com, jbarnold@...lice.com,
	tabbott@...lice.com, wdaher@...lice.com, andersk@...lice.com,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] kreplace: Rebootless kernel updates

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 05:20:25PM +0530, Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> This RFC patch adds support for limited form of rebootless kernel patching 
> even without building the entire kernel.
>
> When looking for a shortcut to avoid the rebuild/reboot cycle when hacking the  
> kernel - the ksplice[1] was posted. This patch extends kprobes to do something 
> similar, which would require even lesser time to _experiment_ with the running 
> kernel. 

There have been other implementations of this feature, I am sure quite a
few people would have objections to having this as part of the kernel :-)

> This small patch extends jprobes so that the jprobe's handler is executed but 
> skips executing the actual function. But this has its own limitations such as 
> Cannot access symbols not exported for modules (ofcourse hacks like 
> pointers[2] can be used.), problems related to return values[3], etc... This 
> is currently a x86_64 only _hack_.

There are many other issues too... How do you enforce correct usage of this
infrastrucutre? What prevents people from overriding core-kernel
functions with their own?

Kprobes themselves provide enough ammunition to users to shoot themselves
in the foot, but this is way more dangerous than that.
...

> The kernel patch for kreplace, an extension to kprobes to do hot patching.  
> Only on x86_64. Do not try this on any other platforms without modifying.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
> 
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c |   18 ++++++++++++++----
>  include/linux/kprobes.h   |    5 ++++-
>  kernel/kprobes.c          |   37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  3 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> index 6c27679..9e2ea2b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -340,9 +340,13 @@ static void __kprobes fix_riprel(struct kprobe *p)
>  #endif
>  }
> 
> -static void __kprobes arch_copy_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
> +static void __kprobes arch_copy_kprobe(struct kprobe *p, int replace)
>  {
> -	memcpy(p->ainsn.insn, p->addr, MAX_INSN_SIZE * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));
> +	if (replace)
> +		memcpy(p->ainsn.insn, ((unsigned char []){0xc3}), 1);
> +	else
> +		memcpy(p->ainsn.insn, p->addr,
> +				MAX_INSN_SIZE * sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t));

This is limiting - especially since we allow multiple probes at the same
address. You modify the instruction underneath to always be a ret.

It also breaks existing functionality -- especially aggregate probes and
return probes.

...

> diff --git a/include/linux/kprobes.h b/include/linux/kprobes.h
> index 497b1d1..91e83fb 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kprobes.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kprobes.h
> @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ static inline int init_test_probes(void)
>  #endif /* CONFIG_KPROBES_SANITY_TEST */
> 
>  extern struct mutex kprobe_mutex;
> -extern int arch_prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p);
> +extern int arch_prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p, int replace);
>  extern void arch_arm_kprobe(struct kprobe *p);
>  extern void arch_disarm_kprobe(struct kprobe *p);
>  extern int arch_init_kprobes(void);
> @@ -240,11 +240,14 @@ int register_kprobes(struct kprobe **kps, int num);
>  void unregister_kprobes(struct kprobe **kps, int num);
>  int setjmp_pre_handler(struct kprobe *, struct pt_regs *);
>  int longjmp_break_handler(struct kprobe *, struct pt_regs *);
> +int register_kreplace(struct jprobe *p);
> +void unregister_kreplace(struct jprobe *p);
>  int register_jprobe(struct jprobe *p);
>  void unregister_jprobe(struct jprobe *p);
>  int register_jprobes(struct jprobe **jps, int num);
>  void unregister_jprobes(struct jprobe **jps, int num);
>  void jprobe_return(void);
> +void set_ax(unsigned long);

Please choose a better arch agnostic naming scheme -- set_ret()?

Ananth
--
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/