linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 15/39] x86/ibt,kprobes: Fix more +0 assumptions

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:   Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:10:40 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, joao@...rdrivepizza.com, hjl.tools@...il.com,
        jpoimboe@...hat.com, andrew.cooper3@...rix.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ndesaulniers@...gle.com,
        keescook@...omium.org, samitolvanen@...gle.com,
        mark.rutland@....com, alyssa.milburn@...el.com, mbenes@...e.cz,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/39] x86/ibt,kprobes: Fix more +0 assumptions

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:41:15 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 10:42:49PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> 
> > OK, this sounds like kp->addr should be "call fentry" if there is ENDBR.
> > 
> > > 
> > > This patch takes the approach that sym+0 means __fentry__, irrespective
> > > of where it might actually live. I *think* that's more or less
> > > consistent with what other architectures do; specifically see
> > > arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c:kprobe_lookup_name(). I'm not quite sure
> > > what ARM64 does when it has BTI on (which is then very similar to what
> > > we have here).
> > 
> > Yeah, I know the powerpc does such thing, but I think that is not what
> > user expected. I actually would like to fix that, because in powerpc
> > and other non-x86 case (without BTI/IBT), the instructions on sym+0 is
> > actually executed.
> > 
> > > 
> > > What do you think makes most sense here?
> > 
> > Are there any way to distinguish the "preparing instructions" (part of
> > calling mcount) and this kind of trap instruction online[1]? If possible,
> > I would like to skip such traps, but put the probe on preparing
> > instructions.
> 
> None that exist, but we could easily create one. See also my email here:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/Yhj1oFcTl2RnghBz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net
> 
> That skip_endbr() function is basically what you're looking for; it just
> needs a better name and a Power/ARM64 implementation to get what you
> want, right?

Great! that's what I need. I think is_endbr() is also useful :)

> The alternative 'hack' I've been contemplating is (ab)using
> INT_MIN/INT_MAX offset for __fentry__ and __fexit__ points (that latter
> is something we'll probably have to grow when CET-SHSTK or backward-edge
> CFI gets to be done, because then ROP tricks as used by function-graph
> and kretprobes are out the window).
> 
> That way sym+[0..size) is still a valid reference to the actual
> instruction in the symbol, but sym+INT_MIN will hard map to __fentry__
> while sym+INT_MAX will get us __fexit__.

Interesting, is that done by another series?
Maybe I have to check that change for kprobe jump optimization.

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>