linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] uprobes: powerpc port

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: <1339134714.25573.4.camel@concordia>
Date:	Fri, 08 Jun 2012 15:51:54 +1000
From:	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To:	ananth@...ibm.com
Cc:	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, oleg@...hat.com,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [POWERPC] uprobes: powerpc port

On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 10:06 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:08:04AM -0700, Jim Keniston wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 15:05 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:27:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:51 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > For the kernel, the only ones that are off limits are rfi (return from
> > > interrupt), mtmsr (move to msr). All other instructions can be probed.
> > > 
> > > Both those instructions are supervisor level, so we won't see them in
> > > userspace at all; so we should be able to probe all user level
> > > instructions.
> > 
> > Presumably rfi or mtmsr could show up in the instruction stream via an
> > erroneous or mischievous asm statement.  It'd be good to verify that you
> > handle that gracefully.
> 
> That'd be flagged elsewhere, by the architecture itself -- you'd get a
> privileged instruciton exception if you try execute any instruction not
> part of the UISA. I therefore don't think its a necessary check in the
> uprobes code.

But you're not executing the instruction, you're passing it to
emulate_step(). Or am I missing something?

cheers

--
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/