linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

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: <1264019325.5122.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:28:45 -0800
From:	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, ananth@...ibm.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
	Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>,
	Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)


On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 20:58 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Re: rewriting instructions that use rip-relative addressing.  We do that
> > now.  See handle_riprel_insn() in patch #2.  (As far as we can tell, it
> > works, but we'd appreciate your review of it.)
> 
> Yes, but how do you get within 2GB of it?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

To jump between the probed instruction stream and the XOL area, I've
proposed
  jmpq *(%rip)
  .quad next_insn
next_insn is a 64-bit address, which presumably allows you to jump to
anywhere in the address space.

To read/write the memory addressed by a rip-relative instruction, we
convert the rip-relative addressing to indirect addressing through a
64-bit scratch register (whose saved value we restore before returning
to the probed instruction stream).

> Add lots of holes
> in the address space? 

No.

> 
> > The instruction decoder is used only during instruction analysis, while
> > registering the probe -- i.e., in kernel space.
> 
> Registering the user probe? That means if there's a buffer overflow
> in there it would be exploitable.

Certainly a poorly written probe handler would be a problem.  Could you
explain further what you mean?  Are you talking about a buffer overflow
in the probed program?  in the probe handler?  in uprobes?

> 
> > > 
> > > In general the trend has been also to make traps faster in the CPU, make 
> > > sure you're not optimizing for some old CPU here.
> > 
> > I won't argue with that.  What Avi seems to be proposing buys us a
> > speedup, but at the cost of increased complexity -- among other things,
> > splitting the instrumentation code between user space (in the "XOL" area
> > -- which would then be used for much more than XOL instruction slots)
> 
> You can't have a single XOL area, at least not if you want to support
> shared libraries on 64bit & rip relative.

I disagree.  See above.

> 
> > and kernel space.  The splitting would presumably be handled by
> > higher-level code -- SystemTap, perf, or whatever.  It's a neat idea,
> > but it seems like a v2 kind of feature.
> 
> I'm not sure it can even work, unless you severly limited the allowed
> instructions.

I'm not sure it can work, either.  But I still believe that we've
addressed the known issues wrt the big x86_64 address space.

> 
> -Andi
> 

Thanks.
Jim

--
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/