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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20131204113024.GB26552@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Dec 2013 12:30:24 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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>,
	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, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> On 12/03/2013 02:01 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So do you think the patch I sent is wrong? Why?
> >
> > I think the TLB shootdown should guarantee that it's ok on other
> > CPU's, since that's basically what we do on mmap.
> >
>
> I think that is true for other CPUs; however, there are definitely CPUs
> out there (which Linux supports) for which you have to synchronize the I
> and D sides "manually" after writing code through memory, at least
> through the CPU.  That is at least one reason why MIPS has a
> cacheflush() system call, for example.

OK, probably (with or without the patch I sent) uprobe_write_opcode() needs
flush_icache_page(). Altough it is nop on x86 and powerpc (architectures
we currently support).

But I still can't understand your "There is no architecture-independent
way to make code globally visible". If this is true, then how, say,
do_swap_page() can work?

So I still think the patch should work (I'll add flush_icache_page).

> > But looking closer at this, I think I see why the old code did what it
> > did. I think it's breaking shared mmap pages on purpose rather than
> > dirtying them. Which is probably the right thing to do.
>
> In other words, treating them as MAP_PRIVATE?  Wouldn't it be better to
> throw an error if we can't honor the semantics of the mapping that we
> are using?

Yes, uprobes never writes to MAP_SHARED vmas.

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/