linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: clean up _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU handling using ptrace_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, 11 Mar 2019 20:04:39 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     "Haibo Xu (Arm Technology China)" <Haibo.Xu@....com>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        "jdike@...toit.com" <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>,
        "Bin Lu (Arm Technology China)" <Bin.Lu@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: clean up _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU handling using
 ptrace_syscall_enter hook

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 6:35 PM Haibo Xu (Arm Technology China)
<Haibo.Xu@....com> wrote:
>
> On 2019/3/12 2:34, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > (I thought I had sent this email, last Tuesday itself, but saw this in my
> > draft today, something went wrong, sorry for the delay)
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 02:14:47AM +0000, Haibo Xu (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> >> On 2019/3/4 18:12, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 08:25:28AM +0000, Haibo Xu (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> >>>> On 2019/3/1 2:32, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>>>> Now that we have a new hook ptrace_syscall_enter that can be called from
> >>>>> syscall entry code and it handles PTRACE_SYSEMU in generic code, we
> >>>>> can do some cleanup using the same in syscall_trace_enter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Further the extra logic to find single stepping PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP
> >>>>> in syscall_slow_exit_work seems unnecessary. Let's remove the same.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should not change the logic here. Is so, it will double the report of syscall
> >>>> when PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP is enabled.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't think that should happen, but I may be missing something.
> >>> Can you explain how ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> When PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP is enabled, both the _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU and
> >> _TIF_SINGLESTEP flags are set, but ptrace only need to report(send SIGTRAP)
> >> at the entry of a system call, no need to report at the exit of a system
> >> call.
> >>
> > Sorry, but I still not get it, we have:
> >
> > step = ((flags & (_TIF_SINGLESTEP | _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU)) == _TIF_SINGLESTEP);
> >
> > For me, this is same as:
> > step = ((flags & _TIF_SINGLESTEP) == _TIF_SINGLESTEP)
> > or
> > if (flags & _TIF_SINGLESTEP)
> > step = true;
> >
>
> I don't think so! As I mentioned in the last email loop, when PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP
> is enabled, both the _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU and _TIF_SINGLESTEP flags are set, in which case
> the step should be "false" for the old logic. But with the new logic, the step is "true".
>
> > So when PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP, _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU and _TIF_SINGLESTEP
> > are set and step evaluates to true.
> >
> > So dropping _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU here should be fine. Am I still missing
> > something ?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Sudeep
> >
>
> For the PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP request, ptrace only need to report(send SIGTRAP)
> at the entry of a system call, no need to report at the exit of a system call.That's
> why the old logic-{step = ((flags & (_TIF_SINGLESTEP | _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU)) == _TIF_SINGLESTEP)}
> here try to filter out the special case(PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP).
>
> Another way to make sure the logic is fine, you can run some tests with respect to both logic,
> and to check whether they have the same behavior.


tools/testing/selftests/x86/ptrace_syscall.c has a test intended to
exercise this.  Can one of you either confirm that it does exercise it
and that it still passes or can you improve the test?

Thanks,
Andy