linux-kernel - Re: [v5][PATCH] livepatch/ppc: Enable livepatching on powerpc

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: <56DED903.2000209@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 9 Mar 2016 00:52:03 +1100
From:	Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
To:	Torsten Duwe <duwe@....de>
Cc:	linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, pmladek@...e.com, jeyu@...hat.com,
	jkosina@...e.cz, jikos@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, mbenes@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [v5][PATCH] livepatch/ppc: Enable livepatching on powerpc



On 08/03/16 21:45, Torsten Duwe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 06:33:57PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> Changelog v5:
>> 	1. Removed the mini-stack frame created for klp_return_helper.
>> 	   As a result of the mini-stack frame, function with > 8
>> 	   arguments could not be patched
> Did you get my previous mails? Those functions only require special
> care, the _can_ be patched. In general, writing replacement functions
> always requires attention!
Yes, I did. We did think about documenting that limitation, but the big concern
was that the system can be panic'd with a simple test case. We expect live patches
to be tested and signed so we should be OK, but there still is a window
> Have you *tested* this patch? Replacing a function in the kernel?
> Replacing a function in a module? For local calls? For global calls?
> I strongly doubt so because it does not work this way.
Yes, if you care to read the changelog
"

I tested the sample in the livepatch and an additional sample
that patches int_to_scsilun. I'll post out that sample if there
is interest later. I also tested ftrace functionality on the
command line to check for breakage"

I've tested patching calls from module to module
(ibmvscsi to scsi_mod), within the kernel (livepatch-sample/
proc_cmdline_show). I must admit there is more testing to
be done

> To be fair, my last mail still was not 100% correct, but the conclusion
> that the mini frame is not needed at all is invalid. Please leave it as it
> was, I'm working on a test / demonstrator for how to handle these.
Why, the magic will be in the patched function? Please share the test/demonstrator
>> +	 * Why do we need this?
>> +	 * After patching we need to return to a trampoline return function
>> +	 * that guarantees that we restore the TOC and return to the correct
>> +	 * caller back
>> +	 */
>> +	std	r2, 24(r1)	/* save TOC now, unconditionally. */
>> +	subf	r0, r2, r0	/* Calculate offset from current TOC */
>> +	stw	r0, 12(r1)	/* Of the final LR and save it in CR+4 */
>> +	bl	5f
>> +5:	mflr	r12
>> +	addi	r12, r12, (klp_return_helper + 4 - .)@l
>> +	std	r12, LRSAVE(r1)
> [...]
>> + * maybe inserting a klp_return_helper frame or not.
>> +*/
>> +klp_return_helper:
>> +	ld	r2, 24(r1)	/* restore TOC (saved by ftrace_caller) */
>> +	lwa	r0, 12(r1)	/* Load from CR+4, offset of LR w.r.t TOC */
>> +	add	r0, r0, r2	/* Add the offset to current TOC */
>> +	std	r0, LRSAVE(r1)	/* save the real return address */
>> +	mtlr	r0
>> +	blr
>> +#endif
> NAKed-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
Why? For using CR+4 or removing the frame? Or you believe there is a better way to
handle this that work, IOW what is broken?
>
> 	Torsten
>
Balbir Singh