linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions

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: <93546F2D-0DF6-4E6A-98B0-BA49491C00CC@amacapital.net>
Date:   Fri, 3 May 2019 16:32:15 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions



> On May 3, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 3:55 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> 
>> But I think this will end up worse than the version where the entry code fixes it up.  This is because, if the C code moves pt_regs, then we need some way to pass the new pointer back to the asm.
> 
> What? I already posted that code. Let me quote it again:
> 
> Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh8bi5c_GkyjPtDAiaXaZRqtmhWs30usUvs4qK_F+c9tg@...l.gmail.com>
> 
>        # args: pt_regs pointer (no error code for int3)
>        movl %esp,%eax
>        # allocate a bit of extra room on the stack, so that
>        # 'kernel_int3' can move the pt_regs
>        subl $8,%esp
>        call kernel_int3
>        movl %eax,%esp
> 
> It's that easy (this is with the assumption that we've already applied
> the "standalone simple int3" case, but I think the above might work
> even with the current code model, just the "call do_int3" needs to
> have the kernel/not-kernel distinction and do the above for the kernel
> case)
> 
> That's *MUCH* easier than your code to move entries around on the
> stack just as you return, and has the advantage of not changing any
> C-visible layout.
> 
> The C interface looks like this
> 
>    /* Note: on x86-32, we can move 'regs' around for push/pop emulation */
>    struct pt_regs *kernel_int3(struct pt_regs *regs)
>    {
>        ..
>        .. need to pass regs to emulation functions
>        .. and call emulation needs to return it
>        ..
>        return regs;
>    }
> 
> and I just posted as a response to Stephen the *trivial* do_int3()
> wrapper (so that x86-64 doesn't need to care), and the *trivial* code
> to actually emulate a call instruction.
> 
> And when I say "trivial", I obviously mean "totally untested and
> probably buggy", but it sure seems *simple*.,
> 
> Notice? Simple and minimal changes to entry code that only affect
> int3, and nothing else.
> 
>  

I can get on board with this.