Message-ID: <7701651F-F10E-4212-925E-1CB77C5D3E69@vmware.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 22:21:39 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
CC:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Changbin Du <changbin.du@...il.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] kprobe: Do not use uaccess functions to access
 kernel memory that can fault

> On Feb 22, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 11:08 PM Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:43 PM, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> (adding some people from the text_poke series to the thread, removing stable@)
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 8:55 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 22, 2019, at 11:34 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:30:26PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:27:05 -0800
>>>>>> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 09:43:14AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Then we should still probably fix up "__probe_kernel_read()" to not
>>>>>>>> allow user accesses. The easiest way to do that is actually likely to
>>>>>>>> use the "unsafe_get_user()" functions *without* doing a
>>>>>>>> uaccess_begin(), which will mean that modern CPU's will simply fault
>>>>>>>> on a kernel access to user space.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On bpf side the bpf_probe_read() helper just calls probe_kernel_read()
>>>>>>> and users pass both user and kernel addresses into it and expect
>>>>>>> that the helper will actually try to read from that address.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If __probe_kernel_read will suddenly start failing on all user addresses
>>>>>>> it will break the expectations.
>>>>>>> How do we solve it in bpf_probe_read?
>>>>>>> Call probe_kernel_read and if that fails call unsafe_get_user byte-by-byte
>>>>>>> in the loop?
>>>>>>> That's doable, but people already complain that bpf_probe_read() is slow
>>>>>>> and shows up in their perf report.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We're changing kprobes to add a specific flag to say that we want to
>>>>>> differentiate between kernel or user reads. Can this be done with
>>>>>> bpf_probe_read()? If it's showing up in perf report, I doubt a single
>>>>> 
>>>>> so you're saying you will break existing kprobe scripts?
>>>>> I don't think it's a good idea.
>>>>> It's not acceptable to break bpf_probe_read uapi.
>>>> 
>>>> If so, the uapi is wrong: a long-sized number does not reliably identify an address if you don’t separately know whether it’s a user or kernel address. s390x and 4G:4G x86_32 are the notable exceptions. I have lobbied for RISC-V and future x86_64 to join the crowd.  I don’t know whether I’ll win this fight, but the uapi will probably have to change for at least s390x.
>>>> 
>>>> What to do about existing scripts is a different question.
>>> 
>>> This lack of logical separation between user and kernel addresses
>>> might interact interestingly with the text_poke series, specifically
>>> "[PATCH v3 05/20] x86/alternative: Initialize temporary mm for
>>> patching" (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flkml%2F20190221234451.17632-6-rick.p.edgecombe%40intel.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cnamit%40vmware.com%7Cf2513009ef734ecd6b0d08d69913a5ae%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C636864707020821793&amp;sdata=HAbnDcrBne64JyPuVUMKmM7nQk67F%2BFvjuXEn8TmHeo%3D&amp;reserved=0)
>>> and "[PATCH v3 06/20] x86/alternative: Use temporary mm for text
>>> poking" (https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kernel.org%2Flkml%2F20190221234451.17632-7-rick.p.edgecombe%40intel.com%2F&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cnamit%40vmware.com%7Cf2513009ef734ecd6b0d08d69913a5ae%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C636864707020821793&amp;sdata=vNRIMKtFDy%2F3z5FlTwDiJY6VGEV%2FMHgQPTdFSFtCo4s%3D&amp;reserved=0),
>>> right? If someone manages to get a tracing BPF program to trigger in a
>>> task that has switched to the patching mm, could they use
>>> bpf_probe_write_user() - which uses probe_kernel_write() after
>>> checking that KERNEL_DS isn't active and that access_ok() passes - to
>>> overwrite kernel text that is mapped writable in the patching mm?
>> 
>> Yes, this is a good point. I guess text_poke() should be defined with
>> “__kprobes” and open-code memcpy.
>> 
>> Does it sound reasonable?
> 
> Doesn't __text_poke() as implemented in the proposed patch use a
> couple other kernel functions, too? Like switch_mm_irqs_off() and
> pte_clear() (which can be a call into a separate function on paravirt
> kernels)?

I will move the pte_clear() to be done after the poking mm was unloaded.
Give me a few minutes to send a sketch of what I think should be done.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists