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  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:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:43:32 -0800
From:   Yonghong Song <>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <>
CC:     <>, <>, <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, <>, <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][v3] uprobes/x86: emulate push insns for uprobe on x86

On 11/14/17 8:03 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>>> +	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_ADDR32))
>>> +		return -ENOSYS;
>>> +#endif
>> No, this doesn't look right, see my previous email. You should do this
>> check in the "if (insn->length == 2)" branch below, "push bp" should be
>> emulated correctly.
>> And test_thread_flag(TIF_ADDR32) is not right too. The caller is not
>> necessarily the probed task. See is_64bit_mm(mm) in arch_uprobe_analyze_insn().
>> And again... please check if uprobe_init_insn() fails or not in this case
>> (32bit task does, say, "push r8"). If it fails, your V2 should be fine.
>> To remind, uprobes && 32-bit is broken, let me quote my another email:
>> 	The 3rd bug means that you simply can't uprobe a 32bit task on a 64bit
>> 	system, the in_compat_syscall() logic in get_unmapped_area() looks very
>> 	wrong although I need to re-check.
> Yes,
>> I didn't have time for this problem so far. But emulation should work, so
>> you can hopefully test your patch.
> Ah, no, sizeof_long() is broken by the same reason, so you can't test it...

Right. I hacked the emulate_push_stack (original name: push_ret_address) 
with sizeof_long = 4, and 32bit binary uprobe works fine on x86_64 
platform then... But that will involve a bigger change to propogate
the is_64bit_mm() along the call graph.

> OK, I'll try to do something tomorrow, then we will see what can we do
> with your patch...

Thanks for reviewing! I will wait for your further comments/direction
before next step.

> But it would be nice if you can check what uprobe_init_insn() does in this
> case, see above.

As mentioned in my previous email, for 32bit application,
compiler won't generate "push %r8" as "%r8" is only available on
x86_64 platform. For 32bit app, I see "push %bp" etc which does not
have rex_prefix. They cannot be emulated right now due to 
emulate_push_stack needs change.

> Oleg.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists