From: torvalds at linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 11:02:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wijZ-MD4g3zMJ9W2r=h8LUWneiu29OWuxZEoSfAF=0bhQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190502162133.GX2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 9:21 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote:
>
> TL;DR, on x86_32 kernel->kernel IRET frames are only 3 entries and do
> not include ESP/SS, so not only wasn't regs->sp setup, if you changed it
> it wouldn't be effective and corrupt random stack state.
Indeed, the 32-bit case for same-RPL exceptions/iret is entirely
different, and I'd forgotten about that.
And honestly, this makes the 32-bit case much worse. Now the entry
stack modifications of int3 suddenly affect not just the entry, but
every exit too.
This is _exactly_ the kind of subtle kernel entry/exit code I wanted
us to avoid.
And while your code looks kind of ok, it's subtly buggy. This sequence:
+ pushl %eax
+ movl %esp, %eax
+
+ movl 4*4(%eax), %esp # restore (modified) regs->sp
+
+ /* rebuild IRET frame */
+ pushl 3*4(%eax) # flags
+ pushl 2*4(%eax) # cs
+ pushl 1*4(%eax) # ip
+
+ andl $0x0000ffff, 4(%esp) # clear high CS bits
+
+ movl (%eax), %eax # restore eax
looks very wrong to me. When you do that "restore (modified)
regs->sp", isn't that now resetting %esp to the point where %eax now
points below the stack? So if we get an NMI in this sequence, that
will overwrite the parts you are trying to copy from?
Am I missing something? doesn't it need to be done something like
pushl %eax
pushl %ecx
movl 20(%esp),%eax # possibly modified regs->sp
movl 16(%esp),%ecx # flags
movl %ecx,-4(%eax)
movl 12(%esp),%ecx # cs
movl %ecx,-8(%eax)
movl 8(%esp),%ecx # ip
movl %ecx, -12(%eax)
movl 4(%esp),%ecx # eax
movl %ecx, -16(%eax)
popl %ecx
lea -16(%eax),%esp
popl %eax
(NOTE NOTE NOTE I might have gotten the offsets and the direction of
the moves *completely* wrong, this is not a serious patch, it's meant
as a "something like this" thing!!)
But now I confused myself, and maybe I'm wrong.
Linus
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: torvalds@linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds)
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions
Date: Thu, 2 May 2019 11:02:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wijZ-MD4g3zMJ9W2r=h8LUWneiu29OWuxZEoSfAF=0bhQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190502180240.5tAl3xL-APx8GRL9eFtDUCpJqLF9gLEGYhzKxycCR_k@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190502162133.GX2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Thu, May 2, 2019@9:21 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> TL;DR, on x86_32 kernel->kernel IRET frames are only 3 entries and do
> not include ESP/SS, so not only wasn't regs->sp setup, if you changed it
> it wouldn't be effective and corrupt random stack state.
Indeed, the 32-bit case for same-RPL exceptions/iret is entirely
different, and I'd forgotten about that.
And honestly, this makes the 32-bit case much worse. Now the entry
stack modifications of int3 suddenly affect not just the entry, but
every exit too.
This is _exactly_ the kind of subtle kernel entry/exit code I wanted
us to avoid.
And while your code looks kind of ok, it's subtly buggy. This sequence:
+ pushl %eax
+ movl %esp, %eax
+
+ movl 4*4(%eax), %esp # restore (modified) regs->sp
+
+ /* rebuild IRET frame */
+ pushl 3*4(%eax) # flags
+ pushl 2*4(%eax) # cs
+ pushl 1*4(%eax) # ip
+
+ andl $0x0000ffff, 4(%esp) # clear high CS bits
+
+ movl (%eax), %eax # restore eax
looks very wrong to me. When you do that "restore (modified)
regs->sp", isn't that now resetting %esp to the point where %eax now
points below the stack? So if we get an NMI in this sequence, that
will overwrite the parts you are trying to copy from?
Am I missing something? doesn't it need to be done something like
pushl %eax
pushl %ecx
movl 20(%esp),%eax # possibly modified regs->sp
movl 16(%esp),%ecx # flags
movl %ecx,-4(%eax)
movl 12(%esp),%ecx # cs
movl %ecx,-8(%eax)
movl 8(%esp),%ecx # ip
movl %ecx, -12(%eax)
movl 4(%esp),%ecx # eax
movl %ecx, -16(%eax)
popl %ecx
lea -16(%eax),%esp
popl %eax
(NOTE NOTE NOTE I might have gotten the offsets and the direction of
the moves *completely* wrong, this is not a serious patch, it's meant
as a "something like this" thing!!)
But now I confused myself, and maybe I'm wrong.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-02 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 204+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20190501202830.347656894@goodmis.org>
2019-05-01 20:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions rostedt
2019-05-01 20:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-02 3:24 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 3:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-02 16:21 ` peterz
2019-05-02 16:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 16:29 ` peterz
2019-05-02 16:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 18:02 ` torvalds [this message]
2019-05-02 18:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 18:18 ` peterz
2019-05-02 18:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 18:30 ` peterz
2019-05-02 18:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 18:43 ` torvalds
2019-05-02 18:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 19:28 ` jikos
2019-05-02 19:28 ` Jiri Kosina
2019-05-02 20:25 ` luto
2019-05-02 20:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-02 20:21 ` peterz
2019-05-02 20:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 20:49 ` torvalds
2019-05-02 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-02 21:32 ` peterz
2019-05-02 21:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 19:24 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 19:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 21:46 ` torvalds
2019-05-03 21:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-03 22:49 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 22:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 23:07 ` torvalds
2019-05-03 23:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-04 4:17 ` rostedt
2019-05-04 4:17 ` Steven Rostedt
[not found] ` <CAHk-=wiuSFbv_rELND-BLWcP0GSZ0yF=xOAEcf61GE3bU9d=yg@mail.gmail.com>
2019-05-04 18:59 ` torvalds
2019-05-04 18:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-04 20:12 ` luto
2019-05-04 20:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-04 20:28 ` torvalds
2019-05-04 20:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-04 20:36 ` torvalds
2019-05-04 20:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-03 22:55 ` luto
2019-05-03 22:55 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-03 23:16 ` torvalds
2019-05-03 23:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-03 23:32 ` luto
2019-05-03 23:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-02 22:52 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 22:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-02 23:31 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 23:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-02 23:50 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 23:50 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 1:51 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2 v2] " rostedt
2019-05-03 1:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 9:29 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] " peterz
2019-05-03 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 13:22 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 13:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 16:20 ` luto
2019-05-03 16:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-03 16:31 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 16:31 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 16:35 ` peterz
2019-05-03 16:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 16:44 ` luto
2019-05-03 16:44 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-03 16:49 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 16:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 16:32 ` peterz
2019-05-03 16:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 18:57 ` torvalds
2019-05-03 18:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 8:19 ` peterz
2019-05-06 8:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-06 13:56 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 13:56 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 16:17 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 16:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 16:19 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 16:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 17:06 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 17:06 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 18:06 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 18:57 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 18:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 19:46 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 19:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 20:29 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 20:29 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 20:42 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 20:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 20:44 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 20:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 21:45 ` rostedt
2019-05-06 21:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 22:06 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 22:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-06 22:31 ` torvalds
2019-05-06 22:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 0:10 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 0:10 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 1:06 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 1:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 1:04 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 1:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 1:34 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 1:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 1:34 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 1:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 1:53 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 1:53 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 2:22 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 2:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 2:58 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 2:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 3:05 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 3:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 3:21 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 3:21 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 3:28 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 3:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 14:54 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 14:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 15:12 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 15:12 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 15:25 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 15:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 16:25 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 16:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 15:31 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 15:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 15:45 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 15:45 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 16:34 ` peterz
2019-05-07 16:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 17:08 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 17:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 17:21 ` jpoimboe
2019-05-07 17:21 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-07 21:24 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 21:24 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-08 4:50 ` torvalds
2019-05-08 4:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-08 16:37 ` rostedt
2019-05-08 16:37 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 17:38 ` peterz
2019-05-07 17:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 9:51 ` peterz
2019-05-07 9:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 14:48 ` luto
2019-05-07 14:48 ` Andy Lutomirski
2019-05-07 14:57 ` torvalds
2019-05-07 14:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-05-07 14:13 ` mhiramat
2019-05-07 14:13 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-07 17:15 ` mhiramat
2019-05-07 17:15 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-06 14:22 ` peterz
2019-05-06 14:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 8:57 ` peterz
2019-05-07 8:57 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 9:18 ` David.Laight
2019-05-07 9:18 ` David Laight
2019-05-07 11:30 ` peterz
2019-05-07 11:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 12:57 ` David.Laight
2019-05-07 12:57 ` David Laight
2019-05-07 13:14 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 13:14 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 14:50 ` David.Laight
2019-05-07 14:50 ` David Laight
2019-05-07 14:57 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 14:57 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 15:46 ` David.Laight
2019-05-07 15:46 ` David Laight
2019-05-07 13:32 ` peterz
2019-05-07 13:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 9:27 ` peterz
2019-05-07 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 12:27 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 12:27 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 12:41 ` peterz
2019-05-07 12:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-07 12:54 ` rostedt
2019-05-07 12:54 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-07 17:22 ` masami.hiramatsu
2019-05-07 17:22 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2019-05-07 14:28 ` peterz
2019-05-07 14:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-02 20:48 ` rostedt
2019-05-02 20:48 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-06 15:14 ` jpoimboe
2019-05-06 15:14 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2019-05-01 20:28 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] ftrace/x86: Emulate call function while updating in breakpoint handler rostedt
2019-05-01 20:28 ` Steven Rostedt
2019-05-03 10:22 ` [RFC][PATCH 1.5/2] x86: Add int3_emulate_call() selftest peterz
2019-05-03 10:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-03 18:46 ` rostedt
2019-05-03 18:46 ` Steven Rostedt
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='CAHk-=wijZ-MD4g3zMJ9W2r=h8LUWneiu29OWuxZEoSfAF=0bhQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=linux-kselftest@vger.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).