linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] uprobes: don't enable/disable signle step if the user did it

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: <20120731040140.GA30007@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:31:41 +0530
From:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] uprobes: don't enable/disable signle step if the user
	did it

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 04:16:38PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/30, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 05:20:43PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > If someone is using single stepping over uprobe brackpoint then after
> > > we pass the uprobe single step, single stepping is disabled and the user
> > > who enebaled them in the first place does not know anything about this.
> > >
> > > This patch avoids enabling / disabling the single step mode if it is
> > > already enabled.
> >
> > This could happen any time 2 different entities call the
> > user_(en/dis)able_single_step() helpers on the same thread.
> 
> Yes. But nobody except ptrace should do use these helpers, I think.

Right now, yes.

> > Wouldn't the right way to fix it be to teach these helpers
> > to honor what the TIF_SINGLESTEP
> 
> Well, I think uprobes should not use TIF_SINGLESTEP at all. This
> bit is (mostly) needed to handle the stepping over syscall. But
> I guess you didn't actually mean TIF_SINGLESTEP...
> 
> > flag setting was in the first place?
> 
> Perhaps, but I don't think so. If nothing else, we do not want
> to add the new counter/whatever in task_struct, while uprobes
> already has uprobe_task which can "remember" the state of _TF
> bit and more.
> 
> And this can't solve other problems. Suppose that gdb does
> PTRACE_SINGLESTEP but the original "popf" insn was already replaced
> by "int3", this will obviously confuse is_setting_trap_flag().
> 
> And we need the additional SIGTRAP from handle_singlestep().
> And we have more problems with DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF. And we do
> not want access_process_vm() from uprobes code.

IIUC you'd want uprobes to do similar to what kprobes does today (see
prepare_singlestep() in arch/xxx/kernel/kprobes.c).

> So I think we need arch_uprobe_*able_step(struct uprobe_task *utask).
> Ignoring all problems except the one this patch tries to fix, x86
> can simply do:
> 
> 	arch_uprobe_enble_step(utask, struct arch_uprobe *auprobe)
> 	{
> 		utask->clear_tf =
> 			!(regs->flags & X86_EFLAGS_TF) &&
> 			(auprobe->insn != "popf");
> 		regs->flags |= X86_EFLAGS_TF;
> 	}
> 
> 	arch_uprobe_disable_step(utask)
> 	{
> 		if (utask->clear_tf)
> 			regs->flags &= ~X86_EFLAGS_TF;
> 	}

Right.

> However. This all needs more discussion (and help from Roland I guess).
> 
> Sebastian, I think your patch is simple and certainly makes the things
> better, just it is not correct (you already realized you can't use
> uprobe->flags) and it is not arch-friendly.
> 
> I'd suggest you to make 2 patches:
> 
> 	- 1/2 creates arch_uprobe_*_step(...) __weak helpers in
> 	      kernel/events/uprobes.c which simply call
> 	      user_*_single_step() and updates the callers
> 
> 	      Not strictly necessary, but imho makes sense...
> 
> 	- 2/2 adds the x86 implementation in arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> 	      which still uses user_*_single_step() but checks
> 	      TIF_SINGLESTEP. As your patch does, but you should use
> 	      utask, not uprobe.
> 
> IOW, I simply suggest to make your patch x86-specific. Then we
> will try to do more fixes/improvements.
> 
> 
> Sebastian, Ananth, what do you think?

Agreed.

Ananth

--
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/