linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] alpha/ptrace: Record and handle the absence of switch

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, 21 Jun 2021 17:31:58 +1200
From:   Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
        Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
        Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
        alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@...el.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] alpha/ptrace: Record and handle the absence of
 switch_stack

Hi Al,

Am 21.06.2021 um 15:44 schrieb Al Viro:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 03:18:35PM +1200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
>> This is what I get from WARN_ONCE:
>>
>> ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1177 at arch/m68k/kernel/ptrace.c:91 get_reg+0x90/0xb8
>> Modules linked in:
>> CPU: 0 PID: 1177 Comm: strace Not tainted 5.13.0-rc1-atari-fpuemu-exitfix+
>> #1146
>> Stack from 014b7f04:
>>         014b7f04 00336401 00336401 000278f0 0032c015 0000005b 00000005
>> 0002795a
>>         0032c015 0000005b 0000338c 00000009 00000000 00000000 ffffffe4
>> 00000005
>>         00000003 00000014 00000003 00000014 efc2b90c 0000338c 0032c015
>> 0000005b
>>         00000009 00000000 efc2b908 00912540 efc2b908 000034cc 00912540
>> 00000005
>>         00000000 efc2b908 00000003 00912540 8000110c c010b0a4 efc2b90c
>> 0002d1d8
>>         00912540 00000003 00000014 efc2b908 0000049a 00000014 efc2b908
>> 800acaa8
>> Call Trace: [<000278f0>] __warn+0x9e/0xb4
>>  [<0002795a>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x54/0x62
>>  [<0000338c>] get_reg+0x90/0xb8
>>  [<0000338c>] get_reg+0x90/0xb8
>>  [<000034cc>] arch_ptrace+0x7e/0x250
>>  [<0002d1d8>] sys_ptrace+0x232/0x2f8
>>  [<00002ab6>] syscall+0x8/0xc
>>  [<0000c00b>] lower+0x7/0x20
>>
>> ---[ end trace ee4be53b94695793 ]---
>>
>> Syscall numbers are actually 90 and 192 - sys_old_mmap and sys_mmap2 on
>> m68k. Used the calculator on my Ubuntu desktop, that appears to be a little
>> confused about hex to decimal conversions.
>>
>> I hope that makes more sense?
>
> Not really; what is the condition you are checking?  The interesting trace

The check in get_reg() is:


            if (WARN_ON_ONCE((off < PT_REG(d1)) &&
               test_ti_thread_status(task_thread_info(task),TIS_TRACING)
                    && !test_ti_thread_status(task_thread_info(task),
                                         TIS_ALLREGS_SAVED))) {
                    unsigned long *addr_d0;
                    addr_d0 = (unsigned long *)(task->thread.esp0 + 
regoff[16]);
                    pr_err("get_reg with incomplete stack, regno %d offs 
%d orig_d0 %lx\n", regno, off, *addr_d0);
                    return 0;
            }


> is not that with get_reg() - it's that of the process being traced.  You
> are not accessing the stack of caller of ptrace(2) here, so you want to
> know that SAVE_SWITCH_STACK had been done by the tracee, not tracer.
>
> And if that had been strace ls, you have TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE set for ls, so
> 	* ls hits system_call
> 	* notices TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE and goes to do_trace_entry
> 	* does SAVE_SWITCH_STACK there

... and sets both the new TIS_TRACING and TIS_ALLREGS_SAVED flags in the 
thread_info->status field (now that I've corrected my patch).

> 	* calls syscall_trace(), which calls ptrace_notify()
> 	* ptrace_notify() calls ptrace_do_notify(), which calls ptrace_stop()
> 	* ptrace_stop() arranges for tracer to be woken up and gives CPU up,
> with TASK_TRACED as process state.

Thanks for explaining! So in order to get a trace for the process being 
traced, I would have to check the TIS_ALLREGS_SAVED in ptrace_stop()?

> That's the callchain in ls, and switch_stack accessed by get_reg() from
> strace is the one on ls(1) stack created by SAVE_SWITCH_STACK.

So testing for TIS_ALLREGS_SAVED in get_reg() (called by the tracer, but 
with the tracee's task struct passed to arch_ptrace()) does check that 
SAVE_SWITCH_STACK was done before the syscall in the tracee, right?

Anyway, I'd missed setting the flags for some crucial SAVE_SWITCH_STACK 
operations in my woefully incomplete patch. With that corrected, there's 
no more warning from mmap. I'll try with a more recent version of strace 
and gdb once I've updated my test image.

Cheers,

	Michael