linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH?] uprobes: change uprobe_write

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: <20131203195314.GA19083@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 3 Dec 2013 20:53:14 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH?] uprobes: change uprobe_write_opcode() to modify the
	page directly

On 12/03, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > See the patch below. For review only
>
> Looks completely broken. Where do you guarantee that it's just a single page?

Yes, it is always a single page on all supported architectures.

This is even documented. I believe that "NOTE:" comment above
uprobe_write_opcode() tries to say this but I guess this comment
should be cleanuped.

And note also

	/* uprobe_write_opcode() assumes we don't cross page boundary */
	BUG_ON((uprobe->offset & ~PAGE_MASK) +
			UPROBE_SWBP_INSN_SIZE > PAGE_SIZE);

in prepare_uprobe().

> Yes, on x86, UPROBE_SWBP_INSN_SIZE is a single byte.

And powerpc checks addr & 3 to ensure it doesn't cross the page.

> frankly, on x86, exactly *because* it's a single byte, I don't
> understand why we don't just write the damn thing with a single
> "put_user()", and stop with all the idiotic games.

Well, put_user() obviously can't work, mm != current->mm.
So we need get_user_pages() at least.

> No need to
> invalidate caches, even, because if you overwrite the first byte of an
> instruction, it all "just works".

I can't comment this, I do not know how the hardware actually works.

> Either the instruction decoding gets
> the old one, or it gets the new one.

Funny that.

I have asked why access_process_vm() can't work when I saw the initial
version of uprobes patches. I was told this can't work (even on x86).

And I was told that this idiotic games were suggested by someone
named Linus Torvalds ;)

> And on non-x86, UPROBE_SWBP_INSN_SIZE is not necessarily 1, so it
> could cross a page boundary.

Yes. If we support such an architecture we should obviously update
uprobe_write_opcode() accordingly.

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/