linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] MIPS Kprobes: Deny probes on ll/sc instructions

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, 08 Nov 2011 12:01:18 -0800
From:	David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
To:	"manesoni@...co.com" <manesoni@...co.com>
CC:	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	"ananth@...ibm.com" <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	"kamensky@...co.com" <kamensky@...co.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mips@...ux-mips.org" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] MIPS Kprobes: Deny probes on ll/sc instructions

On 11/08/2011 09:05 AM, Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> From: Maneesh Soni<manesoni@...co.com>
>
> Deny probes on ll/sc instructions for MIPS kprobes
>
> As ll/sc instruction are for atomic read-modify-write operations, allowing
> probes on top of these insturctions is a bad idea.
>

s/insturctions/instructions/

Not only is it a bad idea, it will probably make them fail 100% of the time.

It is also an equally bad idea to place a probe between any LL and SC 
instructions.  How do you prevent that?

If you cannot prevent probes between LL and SC, why bother with this at all?

David Daney

> Signed-off-by: Victor Kamensky<kamensky@...co.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maneesh Soni<manesoni@...co.com>
> ---
>   arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c |   31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c b/arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c
> index 9fb1876..0ab1a5f 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/kprobes.c
> @@ -113,6 +113,30 @@ insn_ok:
>   	return 0;
>   }
>
> +/*
> + * insn_has_ll_or_sc function checks whether instruction is ll or sc
> + * one; putting breakpoint on top of atomic ll/sc pair is bad idea;
> + * so we need to prevent it and refuse kprobes insertion for such
> + * instructions; cannot do much about breakpoint in the middle of
> + * ll/sc pair; it is upto user to avoid those places
> + */
> +static int __kprobes insn_has_ll_or_sc(union mips_instruction insn)
> +{
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	switch (insn.i_format.opcode) {
> +	case ll_op:
> +	case lld_op:
> +	case sc_op:
> +	case scd_op:
> +		ret = 1;
> +		break;
> +	default:
> +		break;
> +	}
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
>   int __kprobes arch_prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>   {
>   	union mips_instruction insn;
> @@ -121,6 +145,13 @@ int __kprobes arch_prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
>
>   	insn = p->addr[0];
>
> +	if (insn_has_ll_or_sc(insn)) {
> +		pr_notice("Kprobes for ll and sc instructions are not"
> +			  "supported\n");
> +		ret = -EINVAL;
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
>   	if (insn_has_delayslot(insn)) {
>   		pr_notice("Kprobes for branch and jump instructions are not"
>   			  "supported\n");

--
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/