linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 08/10] uprobes: Change handle_trampoline() to flush the frames invalidated by longjmp()

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150507103849.GE30396@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 May 2015 16:08:49 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	Anton Arapov <arapov@...il.com>,
	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Jan Willeke <willeke@...ibm.com>,
	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
	Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] uprobes: Change handle_trampoline() to flush the
 frames invalidated by longjmp()

* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> [2015-05-04 14:49:18]:

> 
> fails if you probe func_1() and func_2() because handle_trampoline()
> assumes that the probed function should must return and hit the bp
> installed be prepare_uretprobe(). But in this case func_2() does not
> return, so when func_1() returns the kernel uses the no longer valid
> return_instance of func_2().
> 
> Change handle_trampoline() to unwind ->return_instances until we know
> that the next chain is alive or NULL, this ensures that the current
> chain is the last we need to report and free.
> 
> Alternatively, every return_instance could use unique trampoline_vaddr,
> in this case we could use it as a key. And this could solve the problem
> with sigaltstack() automatically.
> 
> But this approach needs more changes, and it puts the "hard" limit on
> MAX_URETPROBE_DEPTH. Plus it can not solve another problem partially
> fixed by the next patch.
> 
> Note: this change has no effect on !x86, the arch-agnostic version of
> arch_uretprobe_is_alive() just returns "true".
> 
> TODO: as documented by the previous change, arch_uretprobe_is_alive()
> can be fooled by sigaltstack/etc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> ---

Looks good to me.

Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
-- 
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

--
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/