Re: arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace: fix the range check

[Amnon Shiloh]

Hi Oleg,

> > 2) I was then told (in my own words): "oh, don't worry, the vsyscall page
> >    has now been minimized, all it contains now is *real* system calls,
> >    and it always calls them".
> 
> Not sure where did you get this idea ;) From the very beginning you were
> told that EMULATE mode doesn't do this.

Sorry, I was not aware of the existence of "EMULATE" at the time,
or that it was the default, so I lived in a "NATIVE" world... and
was content that yesterday's problem was solved...  I just looked
at the vsyscall page itself, found the system-calls there and was
"happy" with it, that I could now catch them like anywhere else.

> > 8) Any solution that allows a ptracer to prevent its traced process
> >    from entering the vsyscall page and execute there system-calls
> >    unchecked (thus in effect escape its jailer), would do for me.
> 
> Well. I am even more confused... probably this was already discussed
> and I missed this, but.
> 
> Why do you need to _prevent_, say, sys_gettimeofday()? Why we can't
> change emulate_vsyscall() to respect PTRACE_SYSCALL and report
> TRAP_VSYSCALL or PTRACE_EVENT_VSYSCALL as I tried to suggest in
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135343635523715 ?
> 
> Oleg.
> 

For my own application, I would be happy with this.

But I suspect it might break current versions of "strace",
or similar programs that expect to find the program-counter
pointing at a "syscall" instruction.

At present "strace" fails to report "gettimeofday()", but at
least it does not crash.  Surely "strace" can and should be
enhanced to handle this, but existing versions may suffer.

> 
> You previously replied that this can not work. Now that you see that
> this _can_ work, could you please explain why this is not enough?

I think it COULD work, but not based on PTRACE_SYSCALL
(or PTRACE_SYSEMU) alone.  A new ptrace option will be needed, saying:
"Yes, I am aware of TRAP_VSYSCALL and I know how to handle it."

While for my own application, just fixing the range-check in
arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace will do, requiring a smaller patch,
I agree that fixing this properly by adding a new ptrace option
can help other programmers, so they need not bother with the x86
debug-registers (or perhaps they may need them for other purposes).

Best Regards,
Amnon.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/