I'm trying to inject some code into the IDLE process.
For doing this I need to change the virtual memory protection of the target region. If I'm working with the usual process it can be done with ZwProtectVirtualMemory. It is an undocumented function and it requires a process handle, which I can get from ZwOpenProcess, which, in turn, requires PID.
But IDLE's PID is 0, and ZwOpenProcess doesn't accept it.
I think, there should be another function, that can change protection, but I can't find it. In addition, I'll need to allocate memory in IDLE and it also impossible without process handle.
So, how can I get an IDLE handle or change protection without it?
Related
In the Windows system, we can modify the memory of another process across processes. For example, if process A wants to modify the memory of process B, A can call the system function WriteProcessMemory. The approximate form is as follows:
BOOL flag = WriteProcessMemory(handler, p_B_addr, &p_A_buff, write_size); ...
This function return a Boolean value, which represents whether the write operation is successful. It needs to pass four parameters, let's take a look at these four parameters:
handler. This is a process handle, and it can be used to find B process.
p_B_addr. In process B, the address offset to be written into memory.
p_A_buff. In process A, the pointer to the write data buffer.
write_size. The number of bytes to write.
I am confused about the first parameter handler, which is a variable of type HANDLE. For example, when our program is actually running, the ID of process B is 2680, and then I want to write memory to process B. First I need to use this 2680 to get the handle of process B in process A. The specific form is handler=OpenProcess(PROCESS_ALL_ACCESS, FALSE, 2680), and then you can use this handler to fall into the kernel to modify the memory of process B.
Since they are all trapped in kernel functions to modify memory across processes, why is the WriteProcessMemory function not designed to be in the form of WriteProcessMemory(B_procID, p_B_addr, &p_A_buff, write_size)?
Among them, B_procID is the ID of the B process, since each process they all have unique IDs. Can the system kernel not find the physical address that the virtual address of the B process can map through this B_procID? Why must the process handle index of the B process in the A process be passed in?
There are multiple reasons, all touched on in the comments.
Lifetime. The process id is simply a number, knowing the id does not keep the process alive. Having a open handle to a process means the kernel EPROCESS structure and the process address space will stay intact, even if said process finishes by calling ExitProcess. Windows tries to not re-use the id for a new process right away but it will happen some time in the future given enough time.
Security/Access control. In Windows NT, access control is performed when you open a object, not each time you interact with the object. In this case, the kernel needs to know that the caller has PROCESS_VM_WRITE and PROCESS_VM_OPERATION access to the process. This is related to point 3, efficiency.
Speed. Windows could of course implement a WriteProcessMemoryById function that calls OpenProcess+WriteProcessMemory+CloseHandle but this encourages sub optimal design as well as opening you up to race conditions related to point 1. The same applies to "why is there no WriteFileByFilename function" (and all other Read/Write functions).
I have managed to create a virtual IOPCIDevice which attaches to IOResources and basically does nothing. I'm able to get existing drivers to register and match to it.
However when it comes to IO handling, I have some trouble. IO access by functions (e.g. configRead, ioRead, configWrite, ioWrite) that are described in IOPCIDevice class can be handled by my own code. But drivers that use memory mapping and IODMACommand are the problem.
There seems to be two things that I need to manage: IODeviceMemory(described in the IOPCIDevice) and DMA transfer.
How could I create a IODeviceMemory that ultimately points to memory/RAM, so that when driver tries to communicate to PCI device, it ultimately does nothing or just moves the data to RAM, so my userspace client can handle this data and act as an emulated PCI device?
And then could DMA commands be directed also to my userspace client without interfering to existing drivers' source code that use IODMACommand.
Thanks!
Trapping memory accesses
So in theory, to achieve what you want, you would need to allocate a memory region, set its protection bits to read-only (or possibly neither read nor write if a read in the device you're simulating has side effects), and then trap any writes into your own handler function where you'd then simulate device register writes.
As far as I'm aware, you can do this sort of thing in macOS userspace, using Mach exception handling. You'd need to set things up that page protection fault exceptions from the process you're controlling get sent to a Mach port you control. In that port's message handler, you'd:
check where the access was going to
if it's the device memory, you'd suspend all the threads of the process
switch the thread where the write is coming from to single-step, temporarily allow writes to the memory region
resume the writer thread
trap the single-step message. Your "device memory" now contains the written value.
Perform your "device's" side effects.
Turn off single-step in the writer thread.
Resume all threads.
As I said, I believe this can be done in user space processes. It's not easy, and you can cobble together the Mach calls you need to use from various obscure examples across the web. I got something similar working once, but can't seem to find that code anymore, sorry.
… in the kernel
Now, the other problem is you're trying to do this in the kernel. I'm not aware of any public KPIs that let you do anything like what I've described above. You could start looking for hacks in the following places:
You can quite easily make IOMemoryDescriptors backed by system memory. Don't worry about the IODeviceMemory terminology: these are just IOMemoryDescriptor objects; the IODeviceMemory class is a lie. Trapping accesses is another matter entirely. In principle, you can find out what virtual memory mappings of a particular MD exist using the "reference" flag to the createMappingInTask() function, and then call the redirect() method on the returned IOMemoryMap with a NULL backing memory argument. Unfortunately, this will merely suspend any thread attempting to access the mapping. You don't get a callback when this happens.
You could dig into the guts of the Mach VM memory subsystem, which mostly lives in the osfmk/vm/ directory of the xnu source. Perhaps there's a way to set custom fault handlers for a VM region there. You're probably going to have to get dirty with private kernel APIs though.
Why?
Finally, why are you trying to do this? Take a step back: What is it you're ultimately trying to do with this? It doesn't seem like simulating a PCI device in this way is an end to itself, so is this really the only way to do what greater goal you're ultimately trying to achieve? See: XY problem
I am working on a kernel module where I need to be "aware" that a given process has crashed.
Right now my approach is to set up a periodic timer interrupt in the kernel module; on every timer interrupt, I check the task_struct.state and task_struct.exitstate values for that process.
I am wondering if there's a way to set up an interrupt in the kernel module that would go off when the process terminates, or, when the process receives a given signal (e.g., SIGINT or SIGHUP).
Thanks!
EDIT: A catch here is that I can't modify the user application. Or at least, it would be a much tougher sell to the customer if I place additional requirements/constraints on s/w from another vendor...
You could have your module create a character device node and then open that node from your userspace process. It's only about a dozen lines of boilerplate to register a simple cdev in your module. Your cdev's open method will get called when the process opens the device node and the release method will be called when the device node is closed. If a process exits, either intentionally or because of a signal, all open file descriptors are closed by the kernel. So you can be certain that release will be called. This avoids any need to poll the process status and you can avoid modifying any kernel code outside of your module.
You could also setup a watchdog style system, where your process must write one byte to the device every so often. Have the write method of the cdev reset a timer. If too much time passes without a write and the timer expires, it is assumed the process has somehow failed, even if it hasn't crashed and terminated. For instance a programming bug that allowed for a mutex deadlock or placed the process into an infinite loop.
There is a point in the kernel code where signals are delivered to user processes. You could patch that, check the process name, and signal a condition variable if it matches. This would just catch signals, not intentional process exits. IMHO, this is much uglier and you'll need to deal with maintaining a kernel patch. But it's not that hard, there's a single point, I don't recall what function, sorry, where one can insert the necessary code and it will catch all signals.
Each Application has its memory space. In Windows, all process can use "OpenProcess" and "ReadProcessMemory/WriteProcessMemory(NtReadVirtualMemory/NtWriteVirtualMemory)" to read or write memory of application.
In System kernel, we can hook SSDT function "NtReadVirtualMemory/NtWriteVirtualMemory" to check who read and write memory of Application.
I have a question: Is there a way to check who read and write memory of Application in this application's process?
No. Not without hooking other processes/kernel (by hooking SSDT, as you've mentioned in your question). You can check which process has a handle to your application, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they've actually read/written anything.
To see which process has a handle to your process,
Call NtQuerySystemInformation with SystemHandleInformation(undocumented) for SystemInformationClass parameter, to enumerate all handles that are open on the system.
Duplicate all handles by calling DuplicateHandle with PROCESS_QUERY_INFORMATION access (if I recall correctly, this will filter out all non-process handles)
For each duplicated handle, call GetProcessId to get the process-id.
If the process-id matches with your application's process-id, then we can get the owner of the original handle by looking up the ProcessId field of the original SYSTEM_HANDLE_INFORMATION structure returned from NtQuerySystemInformation.
I've recently read section 5.5.2 (Spinlocks and Atomic Context) of LDDv3 book:
Avoiding sleep while holding a lock can be more difficult; many kernel functions can sleep, and this behavior is not always well documented. Copying data to or from user space is an obvious example: the required user-space page may need to be swapped in from the disk before the copy can proceed, and that operation clearly requires a sleep. Just about any operation that must allocate memory can sleep; kmalloc can decide to give up the processor, and wait for more memory to become available unless it is explicitly told not to. Sleeps can happen in surprising places; writing code that will execute under a spinlock requires paying attention to every function that you call.
It's clear to me that spinlocks must always be held for the minimum time possible and I think that it's relatively easy to write correct spinlock-using code from scratch.
Suppose, however, that we have a big project where spinlocks are widely used.
How can we make sure that functions called from critical sections protected by spinlocks will never sleep?
Thanks in advance!
What about enabling "Sleep-inside-spinlock checking" for your kernel ? It is usually found under Kernel Debugging when you run make config. You might also try to duplicate its behavior in your code.
One thing I noticed on a lot of projects is people seem to misuse spinlocks, they get used instead of the other locking primitives that should have be used.
A linux spinlock only exists in multiprocessor builds (in single process builds the spinlock preprocessor defines are empty) spinlocks are for short duration locks on a multi processor platform.
If code fails to aquire a spinlock it just spins the processor until the lock is free. So either another process running on a different processor must free the lock or possibly it could be freed by an interrupt handler but the wait event mechanism is much better way of waiting on an interrupt.
The irqsave spinlock primitive is a tidy way of disabling/ enabling interrupts so a driver can lock out an interrupt handler but this should only be held for long enough for the process to update some variables shared with an interrupt handler, if you disable interupts you are not going to be scheduled.
If you need to lock out an interrupt handler use a spinlock with irqsave.
For general kernel locking you should be using mutex/semaphore api which will sleep on the lock if they need to.
To lock against code running in other processes use muxtex/semaphore
To lock against code running in an interrupt context use irq save/restore or spinlock_irq save/restore
To lock against code running on other processors then use spinlocks and avoid holding the lock for long.
I hope this helps