linux-kernel - Re: [uml-devel] SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re: [RFC] weird crap with vdso on uml/i386)

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]

Date:	Tue, 23 Aug 2011 19:29:51 +0200
From:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re:
 [RFC] weird crap with vdso on uml/i386)

Am 23.08.2011 19:07, schrieb Al Viro:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 06:58:18PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>
>> What about this hack/solution?
>> While booting UML can check whether the host's vDSO contains
>> a SYSCALL instruction.
>> If so, UML will not make the host's vDSO available to it's
>> processes...
>
> Note that this is *only* for 32bit side of things.  64bit one works fine...

I know. :)

> I wouldn't search for SYSCALL in vdso, BTW - not when we have a good way
> to trigger that crap and recognize it.
>
> At boot time, fork a child.  Have it traced with PTRACE_SYSCALL.  Let it
> put recognizable values in registers and call __kernel_vsyscall().  Then
> let the parent do one more PTRACE_SYSCALL, then PTRACE_POKEUSER and set ebp
> to 0x69696969.  PTRACE_CONT the sucker and let it report what it sees in ecx.
> If it's what we'd put there - fine, it looks safe.  If it's 0x69696969 -
> we have a problem, no vdso for us.

Okay, this is a much cleaner approach.
But first I've to find a machine where I can test the issue.
At home none on of my x86_64 machines is SYSCALL-based.
Tomorrow I'll search at the university for one...

Thanks,
//richard
--
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/