[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190206134115.baba291e33022a2f6b6ae5f8@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 13:41:15 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>,
"# 3.4.x" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
lttng@...iableembeddedsystems.com,
lttng-dev <lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: optimized kprobes illegal instructions in v4.19 stable
kernels
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 15:06:10 +0000
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 7:15 PM Mathieu Desnoyers
> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I notice this commit as a possible culprit of the illegal instructions my lttng
> > users are noticing on arm32 when using kprobes on a v4.19.13 Linux kernel
> > in a Yocto environment [1]. They were able to reproduce the issue with perf
> > as well.
> >
> > commit e46daee53bb50bde38805f1823a182979724c229
> > Author: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > Date: Tue Oct 30 22:12:56 2018 +0100
> >
> > ARM: 8806/1: kprobes: Fix false positive with FORTIFY_SOURCE
> >
> > I *think* the intent there was to do
> >
> > - memcpy(code, &optprobe_template_entry,
> > + memcpy(code, (unsigned long *)&optprobe_template_entry,
> >
> > But if you look at the commit, the "&" seems to have been stripped away,
> > which happens to change the behavior significantly.
>
> Yeah, this was a typo on my part. :(
Ah, I thought it had been fixed as same as x86.
On x86, all optprobe_template_* are defined as kprobe_opcode_t [],
but on arm, it still be kprobe_opcode_t.
Hmm, but I think we should use kprobe_opcode_t [] or char[] as asm/sections.h does.
OK, I'll prepare for the change.
Thank you,
>
> > Has this change ever been runtime-tested ?
>
> I thought I had, given the details from the original bug report, but
> clearly it didn't exercise it.
>
> Thanks for fixing this!
>
> -Kees
>
> >
> > It has been backported to:
> > - 4.19 stable as commit 3fe0c68aea21
> > - 4.14 stable as commit f9e0bc710347
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Mathieu
> >
> > [1] https://bugs.lttng.org/issues/1174
> >
> > --
> > Mathieu Desnoyers
> > EfficiOS Inc.
> > http://www.efficios.com
>
>
>
> --
> Kees Cook
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists