linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] uretprobes/x86: hijack return address

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:15:36 +0530
From:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>
To:	Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>,
	Frank Eigler <fche@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] uretprobes/x86: hijack return address

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:00:11PM +0100, Anton Arapov wrote:
>   hijack the return address and replace it with a "trampoline"
> 
> v2:
>   - remove ->doomed flag, kill task immediately
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h |  1 +
>  arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c      | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> index 8ff8be7..c353555 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> @@ -55,4 +55,5 @@ extern int  arch_uprobe_post_xol(struct arch_uprobe *aup, struct pt_regs *regs);
>  extern bool arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(struct task_struct *tsk);
>  extern int  arch_uprobe_exception_notify(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long val, void *data);
>  extern void arch_uprobe_abort_xol(struct arch_uprobe *aup, struct pt_regs *regs);
> +extern unsigned long arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(unsigned long rp_trampoline_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs);
>  #endif	/* _ASM_UPROBES_H */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> index 0ba4cfb..85e2153 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> @@ -697,3 +697,32 @@ bool arch_uprobe_skip_sstep(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  		send_sig(SIGTRAP, current, 0);
>  	return ret;
>  }
> +
> +extern unsigned long arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(unsigned long
> +		rp_trampoline_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> +	int rasize, ncopied;
> +	unsigned long orig_ret_vaddr = 0; /* clear high bits for 32-bit apps */
> +
> +	rasize = is_ia32_task() ? 4 : 8;
> +	ncopied = copy_from_user(&orig_ret_vaddr, (void __user *)regs->sp, rasize);
> +	if (unlikely(ncopied))

What if ncopied < rasize? Agreed that the upper order bits can be 0, but should
you not validate ncopied == rasize?

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/