From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Clean up PTRACE_GETREGS/PTRACE_PUTREGS regset selection
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 12:32:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210202113256.GC18075@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9268050ac1fb3db6b4ec20d3ef696cc44fa3e9d0.1611884439.git.luto@kernel.org>
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 05:41:21PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> task_user_regset_view() is fundamentally broken, but it's ABI for
> PTRACE_GETREGSET and PTRACE_SETREGSET.
>
> We shouldn't be using it for PTRACE_GETREGS or PTRACE_SETREGS,
No "We" etc pls.
> though. A native 64-bit ptrace() call and an x32 ptrace() call
> should use the 64-bit regset views, and a 32-bit ptrace() call
> (native or compat) should use the 32-bit regset.
> task_user_regset_view() almost does this except that it will
> malfunction if a ptracer is itself ptraced and the outer ptracer
> modifies CS on entry to a ptrace() syscall.
Is that the reason why task_user_regset_view() is fundamentally broken?
It is somewhat unclear what exactly is broken.
> Hopefully that has
> never happened. (The compat ptrace() code already hardcoded the
> 32-bit regset, so this patch has no effect on that path.)
>
> Fix it and deobfuscate the code by hardcoding the 64-bit view in the
> x32 ptrace() and selecting the view based on the kernel config in
> the native ptrace().
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
> ---
>
> Every time I look at ptrace, it grosses me out. This makes it slightly
> more comprehensible.
>
> arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Well, did you run the gdb testsuite on this and a bunch of other tests
we have?
I don't want us to break gdb or something else using ptrace() in some
sublte manner and then waste a bunch of time and energy chasing it, like
the DR6 thing earlier this week.
> +/*
> + * This is used by PTRACE_GETREGSET and PTRACE_SETREGSET to decide which
> + * regset format to use based on the register state of the tracee.
> + * This makes no sense whatsoever, but there appears to be existing user
> + * code that relies on it.
... because? It should use the native regset with which the kernel is
built? Please explain yourself Lutomirski!
:-)))
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-02 11:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-29 1:41 [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Clean up PTRACE_GETREGS/PTRACE_PUTREGS regset selection Andy Lutomirski
2021-02-02 11:32 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
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=20210202113256.GC18075@zn.tnic \
--to=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/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