linux-kernel - Re: Process-wide watchpoints

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:   Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:45:40 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matt Morehouse <mascasa@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Process-wide watchpoints

On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 02:35:36PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:53:59PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > Humm... I was thinking of perf_event_open(pid == 0).
> > > It does not make sense to send SIGTRAP in a remote process, because it
> > > does not necessarily cooperate with us.
> > >
> > > But is there any problem with clone w/o CLONE_THREAD? Assuming the
> > > current process has setup the signal handler, the child will have the
> > > same handler and the same code/address space. So delivery of SIGTRAP
> > > should work the same way in the child.
> >
> > Nothing should be doing CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD. Yes, it's
> > possible, but if you do so, you get to keep the pieces IMO.
> >
> > Current libc either does a full clone (fork) or pthread_create,
> > pthread_create does CLONE_THREAD.
> 
> I meant a different thing.
> I meant that we could restrict synchronous SIGTRAP for (1)
> perf_event_open(pid != 0) and (2) disable it after exec.

Ah, I figured a generic means to inherit across a process, but not a
process tree might be useful.

I don't much like magical/implied constraints.

> What is the issue here for clone without CLONE_THREAD?

It's an abomination that's possible and an endless cause of trouble :/