Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] uretprobes/x86: hijack return address

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:00:11PM +0100, Anton Arapov wrote:
> hijack the return address and replace it with a "trampoline"
>
> v2:
> - remove ->doomed flag, kill task immediately
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Arapov <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> index 8ff8be7..c353555 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> @@ -55,4 +55,5 @@ extern int arch_uprobe_post_xol(struct arch_uprobe *aup, struct pt_regs *regs);
> extern bool arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(struct task_struct *tsk);
> extern int arch_uprobe_exception_notify(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long val, void *data);
> extern void arch_uprobe_abort_xol(struct arch_uprobe *aup, struct pt_regs *regs);
> +extern unsigned long arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(unsigned long rp_trampoline_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> #endif /* _ASM_UPROBES_H */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> index 0ba4cfb..85e2153 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> @@ -697,3 +697,32 @@ bool arch_uprobe_skip_sstep(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> send_sig(SIGTRAP, current, 0);
> return ret;
> }
> +
> +extern unsigned long arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(unsigned long
> + rp_trampoline_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + int rasize, ncopied;
> + unsigned long orig_ret_vaddr = 0; /* clear high bits for 32-bit apps */
> +
> + rasize = is_ia32_task() ? 4 : 8;
> + ncopied = copy_from_user(&orig_ret_vaddr, (void __user *)regs->sp, rasize);
> + if (unlikely(ncopied))

What if ncopied < rasize? Agreed that the upper order bits can be 0, but should
you not validate ncopied == rasize?

Ananth


2013-03-01 11:01:10

by Anton Arapov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] uretprobes/x86: hijack return address

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:15:36AM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:00:11PM +0100, Anton Arapov wrote:
> > hijack the return address and replace it with a "trampoline"
> >
> > v2:
> > - remove ->doomed flag, kill task immediately
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anton Arapov <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h | 1 +
> > arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > index 8ff8be7..c353555 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
> > @@ -55,4 +55,5 @@ extern int arch_uprobe_post_xol(struct arch_uprobe *aup, struct pt_regs *regs);
> > extern bool arch_uprobe_xol_was_trapped(struct task_struct *tsk);
> > extern int arch_uprobe_exception_notify(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long val, void *data);
> > extern void arch_uprobe_abort_xol(struct arch_uprobe *aup, struct pt_regs *regs);
> > +extern unsigned long arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(unsigned long rp_trampoline_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs);
> > #endif /* _ASM_UPROBES_H */
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> > index 0ba4cfb..85e2153 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
> > @@ -697,3 +697,32 @@ bool arch_uprobe_skip_sstep(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > send_sig(SIGTRAP, current, 0);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > +
> > +extern unsigned long arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(unsigned long
> > + rp_trampoline_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + int rasize, ncopied;
> > + unsigned long orig_ret_vaddr = 0; /* clear high bits for 32-bit apps */
> > +
> > + rasize = is_ia32_task() ? 4 : 8;
> > + ncopied = copy_from_user(&orig_ret_vaddr, (void __user *)regs->sp, rasize);
> > + if (unlikely(ncopied))
>
> What if ncopied < rasize? Agreed that the upper order bits can be 0, but should
> you not validate ncopied == rasize?

Function returns 0 in case copy_from_user() was not able to copy
return address entirely, and "if (ncopied)" makes sure of it. We
can't continue if we have no correct return address.

copy_from_user() returns number of bytes that were *not* copied,
thus "ncopied == rasize" means copy_from_user() was not able to copy
*all* bytes. I don't see the point of such check here.

Or am I missing anything?

thank you!
Anton.

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/6] uretprobes/x86: hijack return address

On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 12:00:43PM +0100, Anton Arapov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:15:36AM +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:00:11PM +0100, Anton Arapov wrote:

...

> > > +extern unsigned long arch_uretprobe_hijack_return_addr(unsigned long
> > > + rp_trampoline_vaddr, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > +{
> > > + int rasize, ncopied;
> > > + unsigned long orig_ret_vaddr = 0; /* clear high bits for 32-bit apps */
> > > +
> > > + rasize = is_ia32_task() ? 4 : 8;
> > > + ncopied = copy_from_user(&orig_ret_vaddr, (void __user *)regs->sp, rasize);
> > > + if (unlikely(ncopied))
> >
> > What if ncopied < rasize? Agreed that the upper order bits can be 0, but should
> > you not validate ncopied == rasize?
>
> Function returns 0 in case copy_from_user() was not able to copy
> return address entirely, and "if (ncopied)" makes sure of it. We
> can't continue if we have no correct return address.
>
> copy_from_user() returns number of bytes that were *not* copied,
> thus "ncopied == rasize" means copy_from_user() was not able to copy
> *all* bytes. I don't see the point of such check here.
>
> Or am I missing anything?

You are right... my bad.

Ananth