linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] uprobes: Pass probed vaddr to arch_uprobe_analyze

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: <20120613191519.GA14246@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:15:19 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	michael@...erman.id.au, antonb@...nktux.localdomain,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, peterz@...radead.org,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] uprobes: Pass probed vaddr to
	arch_uprobe_analyze_insn()

On 06/12, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 06/12, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > >
> > > Note also that we should move this !UPROBE_COPY_INSN from
> > > install_breakpoint() to somewhere near alloc_uprobe(). This code
> > > is called only once, it looks a bit strange to use the "random" mm
> > > (the first mm vma_prio_tree_foreach() finds) and its mapping to
> > > verify the insn. In fact this is simply not correct and should be
> > > fixed, note that on x86 arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() checks
> >
> > The reason we "delay" the copy_insn to the first insert is because
> > we have to get access to mm. For archs like x86, we want to know if the
> > executable is 32 bit or not
>
> Yes. And this is wrong afaics.
>
> Once again. This !UPROBE_COPY_INSN code is called only once, and it
> uses the "random" mm. After that install_breakpoint() just calls
> set_swbp(another_mm) while the insn can be invalid because
> another_mm->ia32_compat != mm->ia32_compat.
>
> > So in effect, if we get access to
> > struct file corresponding to the inode and if the inode corresponds to
> > 32 bit executable file or 64 bit executable file during register, then
> > we can move it around alloc_uprobe().
>
> I don't think this can work. I have another simple fix in mind, I'll
> write another email later.

For example. Suppose there is some instruction in /lib64/libc.so which
is valid for 64-bit, but not for 32-bit.

Suppose that a 32-bit application does mmap("/lib64/libc.so", PROT_EXEC).

Now. If vma_prio_tree_foreach() finds this 32-bit mm first, uprobe_register()
fails even if there are other 64-bit applications which could be traced.

Or. uprobe_register() succeeds because it finds a 64-bit mm first, and
then that 32-bit application actually executes the invalid insn.

We can move arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() outside of !UPROBE_COPY_INSN block.

Or, perhaps, validate_insn_bits() should call both
validate_insn_32bits() and validate_insn_64bits(), and set the
UPROBE_VALID_IF_32 / UPROBE_VALID_IF_64 flags. install_breakpoint()
should do the additinal check before set_swbp() and verify that
.ia32_compat matches UPROBE_VALID_IF_*.

What do you think?

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/