linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 24/25] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL

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:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:04:22 +0000
From:   Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>
To:     "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
CC:     Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@...linux.org>,
        Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "strace-devel@...ts.strace.io" <strace-devel@...ts.strace.io>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 24/25] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request

Hi Dmitry,

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 07:09:40PM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> We decided to add .frame_pointer to struct ptrace_syscall_info just for
> consistency with .instruction_pointer and .stack_pointer; I must have been
> misled by comments in asm-generic/ptrace.h into thinking that
> frame_pointer() is universally available across architectures.

Is it correct to say that you're using frame_pointer() purely on user
register state, not kernel?

If so then one option would be to define it for MIPS as something like:

    static inline unsigned long frame_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs)
    {
    	return regs->regs[30];
    }

My concern with that though would be that providing frame_pointer()
unconditionally might mislead people into thinking that the kernel
always has frame pointers, when in reality current MIPS kernels never
do. In fact a comment in MIPS' asm/ptrace.h seems to suggest the lack of
frame_pointer() is intentional for exactly that reason:

> Don't use asm-generic/ptrace.h it defines FP accessors that don't make
> sense on MIPS.  We rather want an error if they get invoked.

Looking across architectures though MIPS isn't going to be the only one
missing frame_pointer(). With a little grepping it appears that these
architectures provide frame_pointer():

  arm
  arm64
  hexagon
  nds32
  powerpc
  riscv
  sparc
  um
  x86

That leaves a whole bunch of other architectures (16) which don't have
frame_pointer(), or at least not in a way that I could see at a glance.

> Unlike .instruction_pointer and .stack_pointer that are actually needed
> in strace, .frame_pointer is not used, so from strace PoV we don't really
> need it.
> 
> So the question is, does anybody need a
> struct ptrace_syscall_info.frame_pointer?
> 
> If yes, how can frame_pointer() be defined on MIPS?
> Or should we just forget about making sense of frame_pointer() and remove
> struct ptrace_syscall_info.frame_pointer from the proposed API?

So, along these lines my suggestion would be to avoid it if you don't
really need it anyway.

Thanks,
    Paul