linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: Add uprobe 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: <20160923041230.GC29470@localhost.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:42:30 +0530
From:   Pratyush Anand <panand@...hat.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        will.deacon@....com, oleg@...hat.com,
        Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
        vijaya.kumar@...iumnetworks.com, dave.long@...aro.org,
        Shi Yang <yang.shi@...aro.org>,
        Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
        steve.capper@...aro.org,
        "Suzuki K. Poulose" <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        Ashok Kumar <ashoks@...adcom.com>,
        Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com>,
        wcohen@...hat.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>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] arm64: Add uprobe support

On 22/09/2016:05:50:30 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 08:53:28AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> > On 21/09/2016:06:04:04 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:30:47PM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> > > > On 20/09/2016:05:59:46 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > > +int arch_uprobe_analyze_insn(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
> > > > > > +		unsigned long addr)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	probe_opcode_t insn;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +	/* TODO: Currently we do not support AARCH32 instruction probing */
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is there a way to check (not necessarily in this file) that we don't
> > > > > probe 32-bit tasks?
> > > > 
> > > > - Well, I do not have complete idea about it that, how it can be done. I think
> > > >   we can not check that just by looking a single bit in an instruction.
> > > >   My understanding is that, we can only know about it when we are executing the
> > > >   instruction, by reading pstate, but that would not be useful for uprobe
> > > >   instruction analysis.
> > > >   
> > > >   I hope, instruction encoding for aarch32 and aarch64 are different, and by
> > > >   analyzing for all types of aarch32 instructions, we will be able to decide
> > > >   that whether instruction is 32 bit trace-able or not.  Accordingly, we can use
> > > >   either BRK or BKPT instruction for breakpoint generation.
> > > 
> > > We may have some unrelated instruction encoding overlapping but I
> > > haven't checked. I was more thinking about whether we know which task is
> > > being probed and check is_compat_task() or maybe using
> > > compat_user_mode(regs).
> > 
> > I had thought of this, but problem is that we might not have task in existence
> > when we enable uprobes.  For example: Lets say we are inserting a trace probe at
> > offset 0x690 in a executable binary.
> > 
> > echo "p test:0x690" > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/uprobe_events
> > echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/uprobes/enable
> > 
> > In the 'enable' step, it is decided that whether instruction is traceable or
> > not. 
> > 
> > (1) But at this point 'test' executable might not be running.

Let me correct myself first here. When executable is not running, then,
arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() is not called while uprobes enabling (ie writing '1'
to 'enable'). In that case, it is called when binary is executed and task is
created.

> > (2) Even if it is running, is_compat_task() or compat_user_mode() might not be
> > usable, as they work with 'current' task.
> 
> What I find strange is that uprobes allows you to insert a breakpoint
> instruction that's not even compatible with the task (so it would
> SIGILL rather than generate a debug exception).
> 
> > What I was thinking that, let it go with 'TODO' as of now. 
> 
> Only that I don't have any guarantee that someone is going to fix it ;).
> 
> As a quick workaround you could check mm->task_size > TASK_SIZE_32 in
> the arch_uprobe_analyze_insn() function.

It would be doable. TASK_SIZE_32 is defined only for COMPAT. So, may be I can
return -EINVAL when mm->task_size < TASK_SIZE_64.

Thanks for your input. 

~Pratyush