linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] uprobe: Add uretprobe syscall to speed up return probe

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]

Message-ID: <ZhT1AqFmo3jwOrzC@krava>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 09:57:54 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@...il.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
	Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Borislav Petkov (AMD)" <bp@...en8.de>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] uprobe: Add uretprobe syscall to speed up return
 probe

On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 09:34:39AM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:

SNIP

> > > 
> > > > this can be fixed by checking the syscall is called from the trampoline
> > > > and prevent handle_trampoline call if it's not
> > > 
> > > Yes, but I still do not think this makes a lot of sense. But I won't argue.
> > > 
> > > And what should sys_uretprobe() do if it is not called from the trampoline?
> > > I'd prefer force_sig(SIGILL) to punish the abuser ;) OK, OK, EINVAL.
> > 
> > so the similar behaviour with int3 ends up with immediate SIGTRAP
> > and not invoking pending uretprobe consumers, like:
> > 
> >   - setup uretprobe for foo
> >   - foo() {
> >       executes int 3 -> sends SIGTRAP
> >     }
> > 
> > because the int3 handler checks if it got executed from the uretprobe's
> > trampoline.. if not it treats that int3 as regular trap
> 
> Yeah, that is consistent behavior. Sounds good to me.
> 
> > 
> > while for uretprobe syscall we have at the moment following behaviour:
> > 
> >   - setup uretprobe for foo
> >   - foo() {
> >      uretprobe_syscall -> executes foo's uretprobe consumers
> >     }
> >   - at some point we get to the 'ret' instruction that jump into uretprobe
> >     trampoline and the uretprobe_syscall won't find pending uretprobe and
> >     will send SIGILL
> > 
> > 
> > so I think we should mimic int3 behaviour and:
> > 
> >   - setup uretprobe for foo
> >   - foo() {
> >      uretprobe_syscall -> check if we got executed from uretprobe's
> >      trampoline and send SIGILL if that's not the case
> 
> OK, this looks good to me.
> 
> > 
> > I think it's better to have the offending process killed right away,
> > rather than having more undefined behaviour, waiting for final 'ret'
> > instruction that jumps to uretprobe trampoline and causes SIGILL
> > 
> > > 
> > > I agree very much with Andrii,
> > > 
> > >        sigreturn()  exists only to allow the implementation of signal handlers.  It should never be
> > >        called directly.  Details of the arguments (if any) passed to sigreturn() vary depending  on
> > >        the architecture.
> > > 
> > > this is how sys_uretprobe() should be treated/documented.
> > 
> > yes, will include man page patch in new version
> 
> And please follow Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst in new version,
> then we can avoid repeating the same discussion :-)

yep, will do

thanks,
jirka