linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] perf,x86: avoid missing caller address in stack traces captured in uprobe

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: <CAEf4Bza22X+vmirG=Xf4zPV0DTn9jVXi1SRTn9ff=LG=z2srNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2024 10:50:00 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, 
	tglx@...utronix.de, jpoimboe@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	bpf@...r.kernel.org, rihams@...com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] perf,x86: avoid missing caller address in stack traces
 captured in uprobe

On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 3:11 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 04:11:27PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_UPROBES
> > +/*
> > + * Heuristic-based check if uprobe is installed at the function entry.
> > + *
> > + * Under assumption of user code being compiled with frame pointers,
> > + * `push %rbp/%ebp` is a good indicator that we indeed are.
> > + *
> > + * Similarly, `endbr64` (assuming 64-bit mode) is also a common pattern.
> > + * If we get this wrong, captured stack trace might have one extra bogus
> > + * entry, but the rest of stack trace will still be meaningful.
> > + */
> > +static bool is_uprobe_at_func_entry(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > +     struct arch_uprobe *auprobe;
> > +
> > +     if (!current->utask)
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     auprobe = current->utask->auprobe;
> > +     if (!auprobe)
> > +             return false;
> > +
> > +     /* push %rbp/%ebp */
> > +     if (auprobe->insn[0] == 0x55)
> > +             return true;
> > +
> > +     /* endbr64 (64-bit only) */
> > +     if (user_64bit_mode(regs) && *(u32 *)auprobe->insn == 0xfa1e0ff3)
> > +             return true;
>
> I meant to reply to Josh suggesting this, but... how can this be? If you
> scribble the ENDBR with an INT3 things will #CP and we'll never get to
> the #BP.

Well, it seems like it works in practice, I just tried. Here's the
disassembly of the function:

00000000000019d0 <urandlib_api_v1>:
    19d0: f3 0f 1e fa                   endbr64
    19d4: 55                            pushq   %rbp
    19d5: 48 89 e5                      movq    %rsp, %rbp
    19d8: 48 83 ec 10                   subq    $0x10, %rsp
    19dc: 48 8d 3d fe ed ff ff          leaq    -0x1202(%rip), %rdi
 # 0x7e1 <__isoc99_scanf+0x7e1>
    19e3: 48 8d 75 fc                   leaq    -0x4(%rbp), %rsi
    19e7: b0 00                         movb    $0x0, %al
    19e9: e8 f2 00 00 00                callq   0x1ae0 <__isoc99_scanf+0x1ae0>
    19ee: b8 01 00 00 00                movl    $0x1, %eax
    19f3: 48 83 c4 10                   addq    $0x10, %rsp
    19f7: 5d                            popq    %rbp
    19f8: c3                            retq
    19f9: 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00          nopl    (%rax)

And here's the state when uprobe is attached:

(gdb) disass/r urandlib_api_v1
Dump of assembler code for function urandlib_api_v1:
   0x00007ffb734e39d0 <+0>:     cc                      int3
   0x00007ffb734e39d1 <+1>:     0f 1e fa                nop    %edx
   0x00007ffb734e39d4 <+4>:     55                      push   %rbp
   0x00007ffb734e39d5 <+5>:     48 89 e5                mov    %rsp,%rbp
   0x00007ffb734e39d8 <+8>:     48 83 ec 10             sub    $0x10,%rsp
   0x00007ffb734e39dc <+12>:    48 8d 3d fe ed ff ff    lea
-0x1202(%rip),%rdi        # 0x7ffb734e27e1
   0x00007ffb734e39e3 <+19>:    48 8d 75 fc             lea    -0x4(%rbp),%rsi
=> 0x00007ffb734e39e7 <+23>:    b0 00                   mov    $0x0,%al
   0x00007ffb734e39e9 <+25>:    e8 f2 00 00 00          call
0x7ffb734e3ae0 <__isoc99_scanf@plt>
   0x00007ffb734e39ee <+30>:    b8 01 00 00 00          mov    $0x1,%eax
   0x00007ffb734e39f3 <+35>:    48 83 c4 10             add    $0x10,%rsp
   0x00007ffb734e39f7 <+39>:    5d                      pop    %rbp
   0x00007ffb734e39f8 <+40>:    c3                      ret


You can see it replaced the first byte, the following 3 bytes are
remnants of endb64 (gdb says it's a nop? :)), and then we proceeded,
you can see I stepped through a few more instructions.

Works by accident?

But either way, if we prevent uprobe to be placed on end64 that will
essentially break any code that does compile with endbr64
(-fcf-protection=branch), which is very not great (I suspect most
people that care would just disable that option in such a case).

>
> Also, we tried very hard to not have a literal encode ENDBR (I really
> should teach objtool about this one :/). If it somehow makes sense to
> keep this clause, please use: gen_endbr()

I'll just use is_endbr(), no problem.