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]

Date:   Tue, 7 May 2019 10:57:24 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:     'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        "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 Tue, 7 May 2019 14:50:26 +0000
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:

> From: Steven Rostedt
> > Sent: 07 May 2019 14:14
> > On Tue, 7 May 2019 12:57:15 +0000
> > David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:

> The 'user' (ie the kernel code that needs to emulate the call) doesn't
> write the data to the stack, just to some per-cpu location.
> (Actually it could be on the stack at the other end of pt-regs.)
> So you get to the 'register restore and iret' code with the stack unaltered.
> It is then a SMOP to replace the %flags saved by the int3 with the %ip
> saved by the int3, the %ip with the address of the function to call,
> restore the flags (push and popf) and issue a ret.f to remove the %ip and %cs.

How would you handle NMIs doing the same thing? Yes, the NMI handlers
have breakpoints that will need to emulated calls as well.

> 
> (Actually you need to add 4 to the callers %ip address to allow for the
> difference between the size of int3 (hopefully 0xcc, not 0xcd 0x3).)
> 
> > > > For 32bit 'the gap' happens naturally when building a 5 entry frame. Yes
> > > > it is possible to build a 5 entry frame on top of the old 3 entry one,
> > > > but why bother...  
> > >
> > > Presumably there is 'horrid' code to generate the gap in 64bit mode?
> > > (less horrid than 32bit, but still horrid?)
> > > Or does it copy the entire pt_regs into a local stack frame and use
> > > that for the iret?  
> > 
> > On x86_64, the gap is only done for int3 and nothing else, thus it is
> > much less horrid. That's because x86_64 has a sane pt_regs storage for
> > all exceptions.  
> 
> Well, in particular, it always loads %sp as part of the iret.
> So you can create a gap and the cpu will remove it for you.
> 
> In 64bit mode you could overwrite the %ss with the return address
> to the caller restore %eax and %flags, push the function address
> and use ret.n to jump to the function subtracting the right amount
> from %esp.
> 
> Actually that means you can do the following in both modes:
> 	if not emulated_call_address then pop %ax; iret else
> 	# assume kernel<->kernel return
> 	push emulated_call_address;
> 	push flags_saved_by_int3
> 	load %ax, return_address_from_iret
> 	add %ax,#4
> 	store %ax, first_stack_location_written_by_int3
> 	load %ax, value_saved_by_int3_entry
> 	popf
> 	ret.n
> 
> The ret.n discards everything from the %ax to the required return address.
> So 'n' is the size of the int3 frame, so 12 for i386 and 40 for amd64.
> 
> If the register restore (done just before this code) finished with
> 'add %sp, sizeof *pt_regs' then the emulated_call_address can be
> loaded in %ax from the other end of pt_regs.
> 
> This all reminds me of fixing up the in-kernel faults that happen
> when loading the user segment registers during 'return to user'
> fault in kernel space.

This all sounds much more complex and fragile than the proposed
solution. Why would we do this over what is being proposed?

-- Steve