linux-kernel - test-case (Was: [PATCH 12/X] uprobes: x86: introduce abort

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:	Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:59:15 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: test-case (Was: [PATCH 12/X] uprobes: x86: introduce abort_xol())

On 10/21, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 10/21, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 08:12:07PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > > > +void abort_xol(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	// !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > > +	// !!! Dear Srikar and Ananth, please implement me !!!
> > > > +	// !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > > +	struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
> > > > +	regs->ip = utask->vaddr;
> > >
> > > nit:
> > > Shouldnt we be setting the ip to the next instruction after this
> > > instruction?
> >
> > No, since we should re-execute the original instruction
>
> Yes,

In case it was not clear, I meant "agree with your 'No'".

> > after removing
> > the breakpoint.
>
> No? we should not remove this uprobe?
>
> > Also, wrt ip being set to the next instruction on a breakpoint hit,
> > that's arch specific.
>
> Probably yes, I am not sure. But:
>
> > For instance, on x86, it points to the next
> > instruction,
>
> No?
>
> 	/**
> 	 * get_uprobe_bkpt_addr - compute address of bkpt given post-bkpt regs
> 	 * @regs: Reflects the saved state of the task after it has hit a breakpoint
> 	 * instruction.
> 	 * Return the address of the breakpoint instruction.
> 	 */
> 	unsigned long __weak get_uprobe_bkpt_addr(struct pt_regs *regs)
> 	{
> 		return instruction_pointer(regs) - UPROBES_BKPT_INSN_SIZE;
> 	}
>
> Yes, initially regs->ip points to the next insn after int3, but
> utask->vaddr == get_uprobe_bkpt_addr() == addr of int3.

Ananth, Srikar, I'd suggest this test-case:

	#include <stdio.h>
	#include <signal.h>
	#include <ucontext.h>

	void *fault_insn;

	static inline void *uc_ip(struct ucontext *ctxt)
	{
		return (void*)ctxt->uc_mcontext.gregs[16];
	}

	void segv(int sig, siginfo_t *info, void *ctxt)
	{
		static int cnt;

		printf("SIGSEGV! ip=%p addr=%p\n", uc_ip(ctxt), info->si_addr);

		if (uc_ip(ctxt) != fault_insn)
			printf("ERR!! wrong ip\n");
		if (info->si_addr != (void*)0x12345678)
			printf("ERR!! wrong addr\n");

		if (++cnt == 3)
			signal(SIGSEGV, SIG_DFL);
	}

	int main(void)
	{
		struct sigaction sa = {
			.sa_sigaction	= segv,
			.sa_flags	= SA_SIGINFO,
		};

		sigaction(SIGSEGV, &sa, NULL);

		fault_insn = &&label;

	label:
		asm volatile ("movl $0x0,0x12345678");

		return 0;
	}

result:

	$ ulimit -c unlimited

	$ ./segv
	SIGSEGV! ip=0x4006eb addr=0x12345678
	SIGSEGV! ip=0x4006eb addr=0x12345678
	SIGSEGV! ip=0x4006eb addr=0x12345678
	Segmentation fault (core dumped)

	$ gdb -c ./core.1826
	...
	Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
	#0  0x00000000004006eb in ?? ()

Now. If you insert uprobe at asm("movl") insn, result should be the same
or the patches I sent are wrong. In particular, the addr in the coredump
should be correct too. And consumer->handler() should be called 3 times
too. This insn is really executed 3 times.

I have no idea how can I test this.

Oleg.

--
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/