linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: Allow user to specify functions to search for on a stack

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2111220853010.5064@pobox.suse.cz>
Date:   Mon, 22 Nov 2021 08:57:53 +0100 (CET)
From:   Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
cc:     jikos@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com, joe.lawrence@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        live-patching@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] livepatch: Allow user to specify functions to search
 for on a stack

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:

> Thanks for doing this!  And at peterz-esque speed no less :-)
> 
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:03:26AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > livepatch's consistency model requires that no live patched function
> > must be found on any task's stack during a transition process after a
> > live patch is applied. It is achieved by walking through stacks of all
> > blocked tasks.
> > 
> > The user might also want to define more functions to search for without
> > them being patched at all. It may either help with preparing a live
> > patch, which would otherwise require additional touches to achieve the
> > consistency
> 
> Do we have any examples of this situation we can add to the commit log?

I do not have anything at hand. Joe, do you remember the case you 
mentioned previously about adding a nop to a function?
 
> > or it can be used to overcome deficiencies the stack
> > checking inherently has. For example, GCC may optimize a function so
> > that a part of it is moved to a different section and the function would
> > jump to it. This child function would not be found on a stack in this
> > case, but it may be important to search for it so that, again, the
> > consistency is achieved.
> > 
> > Allow the user to specify such functions on klp_object level.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/livepatch.h     | 11 +++++++++++
> >  kernel/livepatch/core.c       | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/livepatch/transition.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
> >  3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/livepatch.h b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> > index 2614247a9781..89df578af8c3 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/livepatch.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/livepatch.h
> > @@ -106,9 +106,11 @@ struct klp_callbacks {
> >   * struct klp_object - kernel object structure for live patching
> >   * @name:	module name (or NULL for vmlinux)
> >   * @funcs:	function entries for functions to be patched in the object
> > + * @funcs_stack:	function entries for functions to be stack checked
> 
> So there are two arrays/lists of 'klp_func', and two implied meanings of
> what a 'klp_func' is and how it's initialized.
> 
> Might it be simpler and more explicit to just add a new external field
> to 'klp_func' and continue to have a single 'funcs' array?  Similar to
> what we already do with the special-casing of 'nop', except it would be
> an external field, e.g. 'no_patch' or 'stack_only'.
> 
> Then instead of all the extra klp_for_each_func_stack_static()
> incantations, and the special cases in higher-level callers like
> klp_init_object() and klp_init_patch_early(), the lower-level functions
> like klp_init_func() and klp_init_func_early() can check the field to
> determine which initializations need to be made.  Which is kind of nice
> IMO as it pushes that detail down more where it belongs.  And makes the
> different types of 'klp_func' more explicit.

I thought about doing this for a moment but then I was worried there would 
be many places which would require special-casing, so I tried to keep it 
separate. But yes, it would be cleaner, so definitely worth trying for v2.

Thanks

Miroslav