public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.


  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