linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] kill ptrace_{get,put}

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: <20130416134913.GC9189@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:49:13 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kill ptrace_{get,put}_breakpoints()

On 04/16, Michael Neuling wrote:
>
> > Benjamin, Paul, arch_dup_task_struct()->flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint(src)
> > on powerpc looks "obviously wrong". Don't we need
> >
> > 	- flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint(src);
> > 	+ dst->thread->ptrace_bps[0] = NULL;
>
> Do you mean the following?
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> index 59dd545..559804e 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
> @@ -911,7 +911,7 @@ int arch_dup_task_struct(struct task_struct *dst, struct tas
>         flush_vsx_to_thread(src);
>         flush_spe_to_thread(src);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
> -       flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint(src);
> +       dst->thread.ptrace_bps[0] = NULL;
>  #endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT */

Almost.

This is what I think we should do, but it is pointless to do this
in arch_dup_task_struct(), setup_thread_stack() will copy ptrace_bps[]
from parent later.

> Unable to handle kernel paging request for data at address 0x00100108
> Faulting instruction address: 0xc00000000014d5e4
> cpu 0x0: Vector: 300 (Data Access) at [c00000007e5836a0]
>     pc: c00000000014d5e4: .toggle_bp_slot+0x74/0x1c0
>     lr: c00000000014dc14: .release_bp_slot+0x44/0x70
>     sp: c00000007e583920
>    msr: 9000000000009032
>    dar: 100108
>  dsisr: 42000000
>   current = 0xc00000007e560000
>   paca    = 0xc00000000fe00000	 softe: 0	 irq_happened: 0x08
>     pid   = 1, comm = init
> enter ? for help
> [c00000007e5839d0] c00000000014dc14 .release_bp_slot+0x44/0x70
> [c00000007e583a50] c000000000144bbc .free_event+0x6c/0x1e0
> [c00000007e583ad0] c000000000144dc4 .perf_event_release_kernel+0x94/0x110
> [c00000007e583b60] c00000000014cf08 .unregister_hw_breakpoint+0x18/0x30
> [c00000007e583bd0] c00000000000e5f8 .ptrace_set_debugreg+0x158/0x230
> [c00000007e583cd0] c00000000000eb4c .arch_ptrace+0x43c/0x7b0
> [c00000007e583d90] c00000000008cbf8 .SyS_ptrace+0x98/0x170
> [c00000007e583e30] c000000000009d54 syscall_exit+0x0/0x98
> --- Exception: c01 (System Call) at 000000001001d1d4
> SP (3fffdf7459f0) is in userspace
>
> The crash seems to happen some time after the fork.  Might be when the
> new processes exits or get another ptrace call on it (I'm not sure which
> one sorry).

Yes, probably because both parent and child have the same ->ptrace_bps[]
pointers.

> Without your suggestion it doesn't crash this case (ie. mainline passes).

This is clear. flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint() nullifies ->ptrace_bps[], so
setup_thread_stack() copies NULL.

But, unless I missed something, this is wrong. Why should the parent lose
its bps after fork?

IOW, I think we need something like the patch below, but I do not have
a powerpc machine for the testing.

> Acked-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>

Thanks!

Oleg.

[PATCH] ptrace/powerpc: dont flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint() on fork()

arch_dup_task_struct() does flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint(src), this
is not what we want. We should clear child->thread.ptrace_bps[]
copied by dup_task_struct().

--- x/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
+++ x/arch/powerpc/kernel/process.c
@@ -910,10 +910,6 @@ int arch_dup_task_struct(struct task_str
 	flush_altivec_to_thread(src);
 	flush_vsx_to_thread(src);
 	flush_spe_to_thread(src);
-#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
-	flush_ptrace_hw_breakpoint(src);
-#endif /* CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT */
-
 	*dst = *src;
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -984,6 +980,10 @@ int copy_thread(unsigned long clone_flag
 	p->thread.ksp_limit = (unsigned long)task_stack_page(p) +
 				_ALIGN_UP(sizeof(struct thread_info), 16);
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
+	p->thread.ptrace_bps[0] = NULL;
+#endif
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_STD_MMU_64
 	if (mmu_has_feature(MMU_FTR_SLB)) {
 		unsigned long sp_vsid;

--
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/