linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/8] arm64: kprobes instruction simulation support

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: <56CDC734.4000201@linaro.org>
Date:	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:07:32 -0500
From:	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
	Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Robin Murphy <Robin.Murphy@....com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
	Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
	Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
	John Blackwood <john.blackwood@...r.com>,
	Feng Kan <fkan@....com>,
	Balamurugan Shanmugam <bshanmugam@....com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Vladimir Murzin <Vladimir.Murzin@....com>,
	Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] arm64: kprobes instruction simulation support

On 02/24/2016 04:05 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 01:56:52 -0500
> David Long <dave.long@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 02/19/2016 09:04 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> On 18/02/16 23:48, David Long wrote:
>>>> From: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>
>>>>
>>>> Kprobes needs simulation of instructions that cannot be stepped
>>>> from different memory location, e.g.: those instructions
>>>> that uses PC-relative addressing. In simulation, the behaviour
>>>> of the instruction is implemented using a copy of pt_regs.
>>>>
>>>> Following instruction catagories are simulated:
>>>>    - All branching instructions(conditional, register, and immediate)
>>>>    - Literal access instructions(load-literal, adr/adrp)
>>>>
>>>> Conditional execution is limited to branching instructions in
>>>> ARM v8. If conditions at PSTATE do not match the condition fields
>>>> of opcode, the instruction is effectively NOP. Kprobes considers
>>>> this case as 'miss'.
>>>>
>>>> This code also replaces the use of arch/arm/opcodes.c for
>>>> arm_check_condition().
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to Will Cohen for assorted suggested changes.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David A. Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
>
> [...]
>
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +asmlinkage unsigned int __kprobes arm_check_condition(u32 opcode, u32 psr)
>>>
>>> Why asmlinkage? This function is never called from assembly code on arm64.
>>>
>>
>> This comes from the 32-bit ARM code that tests the condition from
>> entry.S.  We include arch/arm/include/asm/opcodes.h in
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/opcodes.h so it gets declared there with
>> asmlinkage. I can remove the asmlinkage in the actual function
>> definition and it still compiles but I'm not sure that is kosher.
>
> asmlinkage is only meaningful if you're calling it from assembly code.
> As you seem to only call it from C code, having asmlinkage is both
> pointless and confusing.
>
>> Will Deacon was advocating getting rid of the include of the 32-bit header
>> file but it looked to me like this would mean a lot of duplicated
>> defines and the work would be mostly unrelated to kprobes.
>
> Arguably, arm_check_condition() (which only matters to 32bit code,
> hence userspace) is also completely unrelated to kprobes. I still think
> Will's point stands.
>

Yes, I would not argue about that cross-architecture include needing to 
be fixed.  Can I assume you agree that need not be a part of this 
kprobes patch though, nor a prerequisite patch for it?

>>
>>>> +{
>>>> +	u32 cc_bits  = opcode >> 28;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (cc_bits != ARM_OPCODE_CONDITION_UNCOND) {
>>>> +		if ((*opcode_condition_checks[cc_bits])(psr))
>>>> +			return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_PASS;
>>>> +		else
>>>> +			return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_FAIL;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	return ARM_OPCODE_CONDTEST_UNCOND;
>>>> +}
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(arm_check_condition);
>>>
>>> Why do we need this to be exported at all? Also, it'd be better located
>>> together with the deprecated instruction handling, possibly in a
>>> separate patch (nothing uses this function in this patch).
>>>
>>
>> I've made the function static and moved it to armv8_deprecated.  I have
>> to leave the static functions that test the individual conditions and
>> the global array of pointers to them outside of the conditionally
>> compiled armv8_deprecated.c as they have to always be present for
>> kprobes to simulate a conditional branch.
>
> I think that's fine.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	M.
>