Re: [RFC] de-asmify the x86-64 system call slowpath

[Al Viro]

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 08:32:09PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Umm...  Can't uprobe_notify_resume() modify regs as well?
> 
> Probably.
> 
> .. and on the other hand, we should actually be able to use 'sysret'
> for signal handling on x86-64, because while sysret destroys %rcx and
> doesn't allow for returning to odd modes, for calling a signal handler
> I don't think we really care..

I'm afraid we might:

 * When user can change the frames always force IRET. That is because
 * it deals with uncanonical addresses better. SYSRET has trouble
 * with them due to bugs in both AMD and Intel CPUs.

IIRC, that was about SYSRET with something unpleasant left in RCX, which
comes from regs->ip, which is set to sa_handler by __setup_rt_frame().
And we do not normalize or validate that - not in __setup_rt_frame() and
not at sigaction(2) time.  Something about GPF triggered and buggering
attacker-chosen memory area?  I don't remember details, but IIRC the
conclusion had been "just don't go there"...

Note that we can manipulate regs->ip and regs->sp, regardless of validation
at sigaction(2) or __setup_rt_frame() - just have the sucker ptraced, send
it a signal and it'll stop on delivery.  Then tracer can use ptrace to modify
registers and issue PTRACE_CONT with zero signal.  Voila - regs->[is]p
set to arbitrary values, no signal handlers triggered...
--
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/