linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 04/10] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping 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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 11:01:05 +0100
From:	Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
	David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Yang Shi <yang.shi@...aro.org>,
	Zi Shen Lim <zlim.lnx@...il.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
	yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>,
	Li Bin <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
	John Blackwood <john.blackwood@...r.com>,
	Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>,
	Huang Shijie <shijie.huang@....com>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Vladimir Murzin <Vladimir.Murzin@....com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>,
	William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
	Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
	Adam Buchbinder <adam.buchbinder@...il.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 04/10] arm64: Kprobes with single stepping support

On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 05:55:43PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:50:08AM +0100, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > On 25/07/16 18:13, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > >On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 11:51:32AM -0400, David Long wrote:
> > >>OK, it sounds like an improvement. I do worry a little about unexpected side
> > >>effects.
> > >
> > >You get more unexpected side effects by not saving/restoring the whole
> > >stack. We looked into this on Friday and came to the conclusion that
> > >there is no safe way for kprobes to know which arguments passed on the
> > >stack should be preserved, at least not with the current API.

[...]

Jumping cheekily onto this thread, what if some function does this:

void go_on_jprobe_me()
{
}

void foo()
{
	struct bar baz;

	start_io(&baz);

	/* ... */

	go_on_jprobe_me();

	end_io(&baz);
}

If some I/O is being done on baz asynchronously, via DMA or via another
thread, a jprobe implementation that attempts to save/restore the stack
beyond the arguments of the probed function is going to race with such
I/O and can corrupt data.

This is a risk whenever any thread triggers some other master to operate
on objects on the first thread's stack -- I/O is a contrived example, but
there are likely other ways similar asynchronous access can happen to
a thread's stack.

Worse, annotating go_on_jprobe_me() as un-jprobeable doesn't help --
the un-jprobeableness is a property not of the function itself, but
rather a property of the set of callers of that function.  That set can
change at runtime (consider out-of-tree modules).

Cheers
---Dave