On Wednesday 15 July 2009, John Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The solution then is to handle fixups from the unaligned exception handler
> > if you come from the kernel. That should fix the three text cases.
> >
> > I don't fully understand your exception handling there, but I think you
> > also need to add code checking for __range_ok() to your unaligned handler,
> > to prevent malicious user space code from accessing the kernel through
> > unaligned pointers.
>
>
> Just to try to clarify - are there any alignment rules in the ABI on
> user-space pointers (which end up going to get/put_user)?
The kernel normally expects aligned input from user space, but I guess
it can't hurt to handle it anyway. arch/mips/kernel/alignment.c seems
to handle that case. Maybe Ralf can give some more insight.
> It seems the failure path is like this:
>
> 1. userspace passes unaligned pointer
> 2. get_user attempts to access
> 3. CPU raises unaligned exception (if only it would raise the segfault as
> higher priority, before the unaligned!)
> 4. unaligned exception handler attempts to simulate the unaligned access
> with multiple partial read/write ops
> 5. CPU raises MMU exception on the read/write by the unaligned handler
> 6. kernel segfault handler looks up faulting address, it is in the unaligned
> exception handler, which has no fixup.
> 7. no fixup -> failure
Right.
> So, I suppose the question is - where in the sequence is the true failure?
I think in step 4. AFIACT, the kernel must do a number of checks on accesses
to random pointers.
> Clearly LTP thinks it's ok to pass unaligned pointers to the kernel,
> suggesting (1) is fine - thus my question about alignment rules in the ABI.
No, LTP thinks it should get a -EFAULT error code for that access. It does
specify whether it expects this because of an unaligned address or because
of an invalid page.
> Do we need fixups on the unaligned handler itself? This will be ugly ugly
> ugly.
That's what ARM does. You don't have to do it from assembly though,
implementing it in C is probably easier.
> Or, some way of tracing the segfault back through the unaligned
> exception and to the root cause (the get/put-user), and call that fixup as
> required?
Yes, I guess that would have to look roughly like this:
int emulate_insn(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr, unsigned long len)
{
/* use inline assembly with fixups here, return -EFAULT on bad addr */
}
void alignment_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long addr, unsigned
long len)
{
const struct exception_table_entry *fixup;
int err;
if (user_mode(regs)) {
if (!access_ok(addr, len))
goto segv;
if (emulate_insn(regs) == -EFAULT))
goto segv;
} else {
if (!access_ok(addr, len))
goto fixup;
if (emulate_insn(regs, addr, len) == -EFAULT))
goto fixup;
return;
fixup:
fixup = search_exception_tables(regs->ip);
if (!fixup)
goto segv;
regs->ip = fixup->fixup;
return;
segv:
force_sig(SIGSEGV, current));
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
This is your chance to win up to $100,000 in prizes! For a limited time,
vendors submitting new applications to BlackBerry App World(TM) will have
the opportunity to enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge. See full prize
details at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/Challenge
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
