linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] ptrace: fix set_task_blockstep()->update

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: <20120807151531.GC13476@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:15:31 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ptrace: fix
	set_task_blockstep()->update_debugctlmsr() logic

Hi.

Today I noticed by accident that starting from Aug 4 (at least)
all my emails went to nowhere. I am resending some of them...

On 08/07, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> On 08/03/2012 06:29 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/step.c
>> @@ -166,12 +166,18 @@ static void set_task_blockstep(struct task_struct *task, bool on)
>>   	else
>>   		clear_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_BLOCKSTEP);
>>
>> +	if (task != current)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	/* ensure irq/preemption can't change debugctl in between */
>> +	local_irq_disable();
>>   	debugctl = get_debugctlmsr();
>>   	if (on)
>>   		debugctl |= DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
>>   	else
>>   		debugctl&= ~DEBUGCTLMSR_BTF;
>>   	update_debugctlmsr(debugctl);
>> +	local_irq_enable();
>>   }
>
> I would say that you can remove this chunk. For task != current we
> leave.

It turns out, original code is even more buggy than I thought.

Ironically, "task != current" case is more difficult and so far
I do not see how we can handle this case correctly. I'll return
to this a bit later, currently I am working on other patches.

> For uprobes we never set the bit, we only need it cleared.

Yes, at least at first step, and probably we will never need more.

> We get here
> via int 3 and do_debug() already clears TIF_BLOCKSTEP

No, we get here via do_int3(), TIF_BLOCKSTEP is not cleared,

> because the
> CPU clears the bit in CPU.

I am not sure. The manual says:

	 If the BTF flag is set when the processor generates a debug
	 exception, the processor clears the BTF flag along with the
	 TF flag.

but I am not sure "debug exception" also means "breakpoint exception".



do_debug() does clear TIF_BLOCKSTEP, and "The processor cleared BTF"
is true in this case. But it is called after single-step.

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/