linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH ftrace/core v6 4/5] kprobes: Set IPMODIFY flag only if the probe can change regs->ip

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150224131035.GD2358@dhcp128.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 14:10:35 +0100
From:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Seth Jennings <sjenning@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@...e.cz>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ftrace/core v6 4/5] kprobes: Set IPMODIFY flag only if
 the probe can change regs->ip

On Tue 2015-02-24 20:47:06, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2015/02/24 17:52), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Tue 2015-02-24 16:38:18, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Hi Petr,
> >>
> >> Sorry I missed this mail.
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for answering it with many valuable information.
> >  
> >> (2015/01/27 1:14), Petr Mladek wrote:> On Fri 2014-11-21 05:25:30, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >>>> Set FTRACE_OPS_FL_IPMODIFY flag only for the probes which can change
> >>>> regs->ip, which has kprobe->break_handler.
> >>>> Currently we can not put jprobe and another ftrace handler which
> >>>> changes regs->ip on the same function because all kprobes have
> >>>> FTRACE_OPS_FL_IPMODIFY flag. This removes FTRACE_OPS_FL_IPMODIFY
> >>>> flag from kprobes and only when the user uses jprobe (or the
> >>>> kprobe.break_handler != NULL) we add additinal ftrace_ops with
> >>>> FTRACE_OPS_FL_IPMODIFY on target function.
> >>>
> >>> Please, what are the plans with this patch?
> >>
> >> Well, I'll revise this for newer kernel.
> >>>
> >>> I have checked the interference between Kprobes and LivePatching and
> >>> here is my observation:
[...]
> >>> 2. Normal Kprobe for the original function is ignored if the function
> >>>    is patched.
> >>>
> >>>    I am working on a code that will print warning in both
> >>>    cases. First, when we add a patch and the function has
> >>>    a Kprobe registered. Second, the function is patched and
> >>>    we want to add Kprobe for the original version.
> >>
> >> Thanks! Maybe we can add "Ignored" flag for those kprobes so that users
> >> can check it is working or not via debugfs.
> > 
> > Great idea. Well, it will solve only already existing Kprobes.
> 
> Yeah, just changing the kprobe state is easy and needed.
> And for newer kprobes, perhaps we need to add
> bool klp_patched_function(void *func_addr); to check the
> function is patched. (this will need to be done with
> locking kpatch...)

I like this idea and will try to use it once I get time again.

> >>>    I want to make it generic and make it dependent on the
> >>>    IPMODIFY flag. IMHO, it just could be a handshake between
> >>>    kprobe and ftrace code. I am still trying to understand
> >>>    the needed parts of the code ;-)
> > 
> > I have played with it and realized that only Kprobes framework has
> > information about all existing and newly created Kprobes. Therefore
> > we need to somehow inform it that there is a patch and that the code
> > is redirected. I have a prototype that is introducing a new fake
> > Kprobe, so called Patch Probe. It has new flag KPROBE_FLAG_PATCH
> > and no handlers. Conflicts with existing Kprobes are checked when
> > this special probe is added. Also conflicts with these Patch probes
> > are checked when new normal Kprobe is added.
> 
> No, you don't need that. I can make kprobes_location() or
> kprobe_for_each_on(kp, start, end) {} iterator. Since the livepatch
> is in-tree feature now, we can change kprobes for it...

You are right, the in-tree live patch code brings more possibilities. 

> And anyway, IPMODIFY should be only for jprobes not kprobes...

Yup.

> > I have one more patch set in the queue. It better handle errors when
> > kprobe_ftrace_ops could not be registered in arm_kprobe_ftrace()
> > and disarm_kprobe_ftrace(). This one is nearly done. Unfortunately,
> > I had to interupt it because my wife got sick and I had to take care
> > of babies. And then there is the big activity around life patching
> > that we need to somehow handle.
> 
> Ah, thanks, and hope your wife to get better soon.

Thanks a lot. Fortunately, she already is better.

Best Regards,
Petr
--
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/