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]

Message-ID: <65b00ea1-f784-4fb4-2a98-49fa44d9fa8f@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:34:44 +0000
From:   "Haibo Xu (Arm Technology China)" <Haibo.Xu@....com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>
CC:     "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 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.

Regards,

Haibo
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.