linux-kernel - Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] uprobes/x86: Emulate rip-relative call's

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: <53475B74.30504@hitachi.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:03:16 +0900
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <aarapov@...hat.com>,
	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Jonathan Lebon <jlebon@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] uprobes/x86: Emulate rip-relative call's

(2014/04/10 23:20), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On 04/10/2014 03:57 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2014/04/10 22:41), Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2014 05:43 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>> On 04/08, Jim Keniston wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 2014-04-06 at 22:16 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>>>> 0xe8. Anything else?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I think e8 is the only call instruction uprobes will see.
>>>>
>>>> Good.
>>>
>>> There is this monstrosity, "16-bit override for branches" in 64-mode:
>>>
>>> 66 e8 nn nn       callw   <offset16>
>>>
>>> Nobody sane uses it because it truncates instruction pointer.
>>
>> No problem, insn.c can handle that too. :)
> 
> That's good that we decode it correctly,
> but there is more to it.
> 
> Call insn pushes return address to stack.
> 
> This "mutant 16-bit call", what should it push?
> Full RIP?
> Truncated 16-bit IP? If yes, by how much does it
> advance RSP? +2? +8?
> Hmm. Does it affect RSP or only its 16-bit lower part?

At least, if we can trust Intel SDM, it says that depends
on the operand-size (insn->opnd_bytes) and stack segment
descriptor. Please check the SDM vol.1 6.2.2 Stack Alignment
and vol.2a, 3.2 Instructions (A-M), CALL—Call Procedure.
But we'd better check it on x86-32.

Thank you!

> 
> It's a can of worms! :)


-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
Software Platform Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com


--
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/