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: <CAHB_GupuUYPNFoYQeX8EhAcesvqKVVuphuxneudZ5kL2cxm-7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:32:28 +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 <will.deacon@....com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
        vijaya.kumar@...iumnetworks.com, Dave Long <dave.long@...aro.org>,
        Shi Yang <yang.shi@...aro.org>,
        Jungseok Lee <jungseoklee85@...il.com>,
        Steve Capper <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>,
        Will Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        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 Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Catalin Marinas
<catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 09:42:30AM +0530, Pratyush Anand wrote:
>> 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:

>> > 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.
>
> That's just a temporary workaround. If we ever merge ILP32, this test
> would no longer be enough (as the ISA is AArch64 but with TASK_SIZE_32).

OK.. So what about doing something similar what x86 is doing.
We can have a flag for task Type in arch specific mm_context_t. We
also set this flag in COMPAT_SET_PERSONALITY() along with setting
thread_info flag, and we clear them in SET_PERSONALITY().

>
> Looking at prepare_uprobe(), we have a weak is_trap_insn() function.
> This check is meaningless without knowing which instruction set we
> target. A false positive here, however, is not that bad as we wouldn't
> end up inserting the wrong breakpoint in the executable. But it looks to
> me like the core uprobe code needs to pass some additional information
> like the type of task or ELF format to the arch code to make a useful
> choice of breakpoint type.

It seems that 'strtle r0, [r0], #160' would have the closest matching
aarch32 instruction wrt BRK64_OPCODE_UPROBES(0xd42000A0). But that too
seems a bad instruction. So, may be we can use still weak
is_trap_insn().

~Pratyush