linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/23] Make register values available to panic notifiers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20100412145757.7d0297bb.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Mon, 12 Apr 2010 14:57:57 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com>
Cc:	to@...mlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net,
	"linux_arch"@dvomlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net,
	linux_arch@...mlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	maint_arch@...mlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/23] Make register values available to panic notifiers

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:03:38 -0700
David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com> wrote:

> This patch makes panic() and die() registers available to, for example,
> panic notifier functions.  Panic notifier functions are quite useful
> for recording crash information, but they don't get passed the register
> values. This makes it hard to print register contents, do stack
> backtraces, etc. The changes in this patch save the register state when
> panic() is called and introduce a function for die() to call that allows
> it to pass in the registers it was passed.
> 
> Following this patch are more patches, one per architecture. These include
> two types of changes:
> o  A save_ptregs() function for the processor. I've taken a whack at
>    doing this for all of the processors. I have tested x86 and MIPS
>    versions. I was able to find cross compilers for ARM, ... and the
>    code compiles cleanly. Everything else, well, what you see is sheer
>    fantasy. You are welcome to chortle with merriment.
> o  When I could figure it out, I replaced the calls to panic() in
>    exception handling functions with calls to panic_with_regs() so
>    that everyone can leverage these changes without much effort. Again,
>    not all the code was transparent, so there are likely some places
>    that should have additional work done.
> 
> Note that the pointer to the struct pt_regs may be NULL. This is to
> accomodate those processors which don't have a working save_ptregs(). I'd
> love to eliminate this case by providing a save_ptregs() for all
> architectures, but I'll need help to so.
> 

It would make life easier if you could describe (or send) a means by
which arch maintainers can easily test these changes.

> --- a/kernel/panic.c
> +++ b/kernel/panic.c
>
> ...
>
> +/* Registers stored in calls to panic() */
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pt_regs, panic_panic_regs);
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(const struct pt_regs *, panic_regs);
> +
> +/**
> + * get_panic_regs - return the current pointer to panic register values
> + */
> +const struct pt_regs *get_panic_regs()
> +{
> +	return __get_cpu_var(panic_regs);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_panic_regs);
> +
> +/**
> + * set_panic_regs - Set a pointer to the values of registers on panic()
> + * @new_regs:	Pointer to register values
> + *
> + * Returns: Pointer to the previous panic registers, if any.
> + */
> +const struct pt_regs *set_panic_regs(const struct pt_regs *new_regs)
> +{
> +	const struct pt_regs *old_regs, **pp_regs;
> +
> +	pp_regs = &__get_cpu_var(panic_regs);
> +	old_regs = *pp_regs;
> +	*pp_regs = new_regs;
> +	return old_regs;
> +}

What's going on here?  We define storage for a set of pt_regs and also
storage for a set of pt_regs pointers, and provide the ability for
callers to rewrite the thing which the pt_regs*'s point at.

Seems complex.  Why not simply provide a set of pt_regs and permit
callers to copy their own pt_regs sets into that area?

Secondly, this code implicitly assumes that the panicing code is pinned
to the panicing CPU and cannot be preempted and migrated to a different
CPU.  Is that true - do we take steps to ensure this anywhere?

Thirdly and relatedly, the code assumes that callers have disabled
preemption (otherwise __get_cpu_var->smp_processor_id() will whine). 
Where does this get reliably assured?

--
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/