linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] uprobes: Kill UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP and can_skip

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]

Date:	Tue, 01 Apr 2014 11:39:56 -0400
From:	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	Jonathan Lebon <jlebon@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] uprobes: Kill UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP and can_skip_sstep()

On 03/31/14 15:43, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> UPROBE_COPY_INSN, UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP, and uprobe->flags must die. This
> patch kills UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP. I never understood why it was added;
> not only it doesn't help, it harms.
>
> It can only help to avoid arch_uprobe_skip_sstep() if it was already
> called before and failed. But this is ugly, if we want to know whether
> we can emulate this instruction or not we should do this analysis in
> arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(), not when we hit this probe for the first
> time.
>
> And in fact this logic is simply wrong. arch_uprobe_skip_sstep() can
> fail or not depending on the task/register state, if this insn can be
> emulated but, say, put_user() fails we need to xol it this time, but
> this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to emulate it when this or another
> thread hist this bp next time.
>
> And this is the actual reason for this change. We need to emulate the
> "call" insn, but push(return-address) can obviously fail.
>
> Per-arch notes:
>
> 	x86: __skip_sstep() can only emulate "rep;nop". With this
> 	     change it will be called every time and most probably
> 	     for no reason.
>
> 	     This will be fixed by the next changes. We need to
> 	     change this suboptimal code anyway.
>
> 	arm: Should not be affected. It has its own "bool simulate"
> 	     flag checked in arch_uprobe_skip_sstep().
>
> 	ppc: Looks like, it can emulate almost everything. Does it
> 	     actually needs to record the fact that emulate_step()
> 	     failed? Hopefully not. But if yes, it can add the ppc-
> 	     specific flag into arch_uprobe.
>
> TODO: rename arch_uprobe_skip_sstep() to arch_uprobe_emulate_insn(),
>
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> ---
>   kernel/events/uprobes.c |   23 ++---------------------
>   1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/uprobes.c b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> index 307d87c..7a3e14e 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
> @@ -60,8 +60,6 @@ static struct percpu_rw_semaphore dup_mmap_sem;
>
>   /* Have a copy of original instruction */
>   #define UPROBE_COPY_INSN	0
> -/* Can skip singlestep */
> -#define UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP	1
>
>   struct uprobe {
>   	struct rb_node		rb_node;	/* node in the rb tree */
> @@ -491,12 +489,9 @@ static struct uprobe *alloc_uprobe(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset)
>   	uprobe->offset = offset;
>   	init_rwsem(&uprobe->register_rwsem);
>   	init_rwsem(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
> -	/* For now assume that the instruction need not be single-stepped */
> -	__set_bit(UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP, &uprobe->flags);
>
>   	/* add to uprobes_tree, sorted on inode:offset */
>   	cur_uprobe = insert_uprobe(uprobe);
> -
>   	/* a uprobe exists for this inode:offset combination */
>   	if (cur_uprobe) {
>   		kfree(uprobe);
> @@ -1628,20 +1623,6 @@ bool uprobe_deny_signal(void)
>   	return true;
>   }
>
> -/*
> - * Avoid singlestepping the original instruction if the original instruction
> - * is a NOP or can be emulated.
> - */
> -static bool can_skip_sstep(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> -{
> -	if (test_bit(UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP, &uprobe->flags)) {
> -		if (arch_uprobe_skip_sstep(&uprobe->arch, regs))
> -			return true;
> -		clear_bit(UPROBE_SKIP_SSTEP, &uprobe->flags);
> -	}
> -	return false;
> -}
> -
>   static void mmf_recalc_uprobes(struct mm_struct *mm)
>   {
>   	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> @@ -1859,13 +1840,13 @@ static void handle_swbp(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   		goto out;
>
>   	handler_chain(uprobe, regs);
> -	if (can_skip_sstep(uprobe, regs))
> +	if (arch_uprobe_skip_sstep(&uprobe->arch, regs))
>   		goto out;
>
>   	if (!pre_ssout(uprobe, regs, bp_vaddr))
>   		return;
>
> -	/* can_skip_sstep() succeeded, or restart if can't singlestep */
> +	/* arch_uprobe_skip_sstep() succeeded, or restart if can't singlestep */
>   out:
>   	put_uprobe(uprobe);
>   }
>

This looks OK to me.  I've tested it with my ARM uprobes/kprobes patch 
and there are no regressions.

Reviewed-by: David A. Long <dave.long@...aro.org>


-dl

--
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/