linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] kprobes crashing because of preempt count

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: <4E0D1EE3.6080607@hitachi.com>
Date:	Fri, 01 Jul 2011 10:12:03 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, yrl.pp-manager.tt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] kprobes crashing because of preempt count

(2011/06/30 22:23), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Hi Masami,
> 
> While testing some changes in -rt against kprobes, I hit a crash that
> exists in mainline. If we stick a probe in a location that reads
> preempt_count, we corrupt the kernel itself.
> 
> Reason is that the kprobe single step handler disables preemption, sets
> up the single step, returns to the code to execute that single step,
> takes the trap, enables preemption, and continues.
> 
> The issue, is because we disabled preemption in the trap, returned, then
> enabled it again in another trap, we just changed what the code sees
> that does that single step.
> 
> If we add a kprobe on a inc_preempt_count() call:
> 
> 	[ preempt_count = 0 ]
> 
> 	ld preempt_count, %eax	<<--- trap
> 
> 		<trap>
> 		preempt_disable();
> 		[ preempt_count = 1]
> 		setup_singlestep();
> 		<trap return>
> 
> 	[ preempt_count = 1 ]
> 
> 	ld preempt_count, %eax
> 
> 	[ %eax = 1 ]
> 
> 		<trap>
> 		post_kprobe_handler()
> 			preempt_enable_no_resched();
> 			[ preempt_count = 0 ]
> 		<trap return>
> 
> 	[ %eax = 1 ]
> 
> 	add %eax,1
> 
> 	[ %eax = 2 ]
> 
> 	st %eax, preempt_count
> 
> 	[ preempt_count = 2 ]
> 
> 
> We just caused preempt count to increment twice when it should have only
> incremented once, and this screws everything else up.

Ah! right!

> Do we really need to have preemption disabled throughout this? Is it
> because we don't want to migrate or call schedule? Not sure what the
> best way to fix this is. Perhaps we add a kprobe_preempt_disable() that
> is checked as well?

I think the best way to do that is just removing preemption disabling
code, because
- breakpoint exception itself disables interrupt (at least on x86)
- While single stepping, interrupts also be disabled.
(BTW, theoretically, boosted and optimized kprobes shouldn't have
this problem, because those doesn't execute single-stepping)

So, I think there is no reason of disabling preemption.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
--
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/