linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/7] kprobes: Disable Kprobe when ftrace arming fails

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: <1424967232-2923-2-git-send-email-pmladek@suse.cz>
Date:	Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:13:46 +0100
From:	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] kprobes: Disable Kprobe when ftrace arming fails

arm_kprobe_ftrace() could fail, especially after introducing ftrace IPMODIFY
flag and LifePatching. But this situation is not properly handled.
This patch adds the most important changes.

First, it does not make sense to register "kprobe_ftrace_ops" if the filter was
not set.

Second, we should remove the filter if the registration of "kprobe_ftrace_ops"
fails. The failure might be caused by conflict between the Kprobe and
a life patch via the IPMODIFY flag. If we remove the filter, we will allow
to register "kprobe_ftrace_ops" for another non-conflicting Kprobe later.

Third, we need to make sure that "kprobe_ftrace_enabled" is incremented only
when "kprobe_ftrace_ops" is successfully registered. Otherwise, another
Kprobe will not try to register it again. Note that we could move the
manipulation with this counter because it is accessed only under "kprobe_mutex".

Four, we should mark the probe as disabled if the ftrace stuff is not usable.
It will be the correct status. Also it will prevent the unregistration code
from producing another failure.

It looks more safe to disable the Kprobe directly in "kprobe_ftrace_ops". Note
that we need to disable also all listed Kprobes in case of an aggregated probe.
It would be enough to disable only the new one but we do not know which one it
was. They should be in sync anyway.

Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.cz>
---
 kernel/kprobes.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/kprobes.c b/kernel/kprobes.c
index ee619929cf90..d1b9db690b9c 100644
--- a/kernel/kprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/kprobes.c
@@ -931,16 +931,33 @@ static int prepare_kprobe(struct kprobe *p)
 /* Caller must lock kprobe_mutex */
 static void arm_kprobe_ftrace(struct kprobe *p)
 {
+	struct kprobe *kp;
 	int ret;

 	ret = ftrace_set_filter_ip(&kprobe_ftrace_ops,
 				   (unsigned long)p->addr, 0, 0);
-	WARN(ret < 0, "Failed to arm kprobe-ftrace at %p (%d)\n", p->addr, ret);
-	kprobe_ftrace_enabled++;
-	if (kprobe_ftrace_enabled == 1) {
+	if (WARN(ret < 0,
+		 "Failed to arm kprobe-ftrace at %p (%d). The kprobe gets disabled.\n",
+		 p->addr, ret))
+		goto err_filter;
+
+	if (!kprobe_ftrace_enabled) {
 		ret = register_ftrace_function(&kprobe_ftrace_ops);
-		WARN(ret < 0, "Failed to init kprobe-ftrace (%d)\n", ret);
+		if (WARN(ret < 0,
+			 "Failed to init kprobe-ftrace (%d). The probe at %p gets disabled\n",
+			 ret, p->addr))
+			goto err_function;
 	}
+	kprobe_ftrace_enabled++;
+	return;
+
+err_function:
+	ftrace_set_filter_ip(&kprobe_ftrace_ops, (unsigned long)p->addr, 1, 0);
+err_filter:
+	p->flags |= KPROBE_FLAG_DISABLED;
+	if (kprobe_aggrprobe(p))
+		list_for_each_entry_rcu(kp, &p->list, list)
+			kp->flags |= KPROBE_FLAG_DISABLED;
 }

 /* Caller must lock kprobe_mutex */
-- 
1.8.5.6

--
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/