linux-kernel - Re: Query: ARM64: Behavior of el1_dbg exception while executing el0

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:	Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:22:44 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Query: ARM64: Behavior of el1_dbg exception while executing
 el0_dbg

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 12:00:09PM +0000, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> On Thursday 15 January 2015 10:17 PM, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 January 2015 11:23 PM, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> >> I will still try to find some way to capture enable_dbg macro path.H
> >
> > I did instrumented debug tap points at all the location from where
> > enable_debug macro is called(see attached debug patch). But, I do not
> > see that, execution reaches to any of those tap points between el0_dbg
> > and el1_dbg, and tap points debug log also confirms that el1_dbg is
> > raised before el0_dbg is returned.
> 
> Probably we all missed this, ARMv8 specs is very clear about it. In 
> section "D2.1 About debug exceptions" it says:
> 
> Software Breakpoint Instruction exceptions cannot be masked. The PE 
> takes Software Breakpoint Instruction exceptions regardless of both of 
> the following:
> • The current Exception level.
> • The current Security state.

Ah, of course, I completely forgot you were using software breakpoints!

> So, reception of el1_dbg while executing el0_dbg seems perfectly normal 
> to me. If you agree then I am back with the original query which I asked 
> in the beginning of the 
> thread,(http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/383672) 
> ie how can instruction_pointer be wrong when second el1_dbg is called 
> recursively(as follows).
> 
> [1]-> el0_dbg (After executing BRK instruction by user)
> [2]	-> el1_dbg (when uprobe break handler at [1] executes BRK instruction)
> 		(At the end of this ELR_EL1 is programmed with fffffdfffc000004)
> [3]		-> el1_dbg (when kprobe break handler at [2] enables single stepping)
> 		(Here ELR_EL1 was found fffffe0000092470).So When this el1_dbg was 
> received, then regs->pc  values are not same what was programmed in 
> ELR_EL1 at the return of [2].

Perhaps you're not removing the BRK instruction properly, and so you try to
single-step a trapping instruction and end up stepping into the exception?

Will
--
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/