From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Anton Arapov <anton@redhat.com>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Josh Stone <jistone@redhat.com>, Frank Eigler <fche@redhat.com>,
Anithra P Janakiraman <anithra@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] uretprobes/x86: hijack return address
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 17:02:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121222160212.GA18082@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1356088596-17858-2-git-send-email-anton@redhat.com>
On 12/21, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> +extern unsigned long
> +arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(unsigned long rp_trampoline_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + struct uprobe_task *utask = current->utask;
> + int rasize, ncopied;
> + unsigned long orig_return_vaddr = 0; /* clear high bits for 32-bit apps */
> +
> + if (is_ia32_task())
> + rasize = 4;
> + else
> + rasize = 8;
> +
> + ncopied = copy_from_user(&orig_return_vaddr, (void __user *)regs->sp, rasize);
> + if (unlikely(ncopied))
> + return -EFAULT;
Hmm. The caller (added by 3/6) does
ri->orig_return_vaddr = arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(...);
if (likely(ri->orig_return_vaddr)) {
> + ncopied = copy_to_user((void __user *)regs->sp, &rp_trampoline_vaddr, rasize);
> + if (unlikely(ncopied)) {
> + if (ncopied != rasize) {
> + printk(KERN_ERR "uretprobe: return address clobbered: "
> + "pid=%d, %%sp=%#lx, %%ip=%#lx\n",
> + current->pid, regs->sp, regs->ip);
OK... perhaps we could try to write rasize - ncopied bytes first, but
this is minor.
> + utask->doomed = true;
But this looks strange. We set ->doomed = true, but the task continues to run.
I think in this case we should send SIGTRAP right now. We should not wait until
handle_swbp() notices this flag (which btw can never happen). And this also
means ->doomed should die.
> + return -EFAULT;
Again, NULL or fix the caller.
> + * On x86_32, if a function returns a struct or union, the return
> + * value is copied into an area created by the caller. The address
> + * of this area is passed on the stack as a "hidden" first argument.
> + * When such a function returns, it uses a "ret $4" instruction to pop
> + * not only the return address but also the hidden arg. To accommodate
> + * such functions, we add 4 bytes of slop when predicting the return
> + * address. See PR #10078.
^^^^^^^^^
I'd wish I knew what this "PR" means ;)
> +#define STRUCT_RETURN_SLOP 4
> +
> +extern unsigned long
> +arch_uretprobe_predict_sp_at_return(struct pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + if (test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_IA32))
> + return (unsigned long) (regs->sp + 4 + STRUCT_RETURN_SLOP);
Somehow I can't understand the logic behind arch_uretprobe_predict_sp_at_return()
at all... I'll try more. but tsk is always current, I see no point to pass the
argument.
> @@ -60,6 +63,12 @@ struct uprobe_task {
>
> unsigned long xol_vaddr;
> unsigned long vaddr;
> +
> + /*
> + * Unexpected error in probe point handling has left task's
> + * text or stack corrupted. Kill task ASAP.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly, so ...
> + bool doomed;
must die, I think.
Oleg.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-22 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-21 11:16 [RFC PATCH 0/6] uprobes: return probe implementation Anton Arapov
2012-12-21 11:16 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] uretprobes/x86: hijack return address Anton Arapov
2012-12-22 16:02 ` Oleg Nesterov [this message]
2012-12-21 11:16 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] uretprobes: trampoline implementation Anton Arapov
2012-12-22 16:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-21 11:16 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] uretprobes: return probe entry, prepare uretprobe Anton Arapov
2012-12-22 16:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-21 11:16 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] uretprobes: invoke return probe handlers Anton Arapov
2012-12-22 16:29 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-21 11:16 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] uprobes: add bp_vaddr argument to consumer handler Anton Arapov
2012-12-22 16:35 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-22 17:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-23 15:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-01-08 14:27 ` Anton Arapov
2013-01-10 22:43 ` Josh Stone
2013-01-12 17:06 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-01-15 19:15 ` Josh Stone
2013-01-16 16:20 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-21 11:16 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] uretprobes: register() and unregister() implementation Anton Arapov
2012-12-22 16:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2012-12-21 17:37 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] uprobes: return probe implementation Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20121222160212.GA18082@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=anithra@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@redhat.com \
--cc=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=jistone@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox