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: <CAEf4BzZFU6CEK-=eTo_LTScYCVoBCYXeH_O_AoZd8rBYiwWzdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 08:11:57 -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, 
	rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] perf,x86: avoid missing caller address in stack traces
 captured in uprobe

On Wed, Jul 10, 2024 at 4:39 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:50:00AM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Yeah, we don't actually have Userspace IBT enabled yet, even on hardware
> that supports it.

OK, I don't know what the implications are, but it's a good accident :)

Anyways, what should I do for v4? Drop is_endbr6() check or keep it?